Message-ID: <498DDB52.6070207@agliodbs.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:04:50 -0800
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
CC: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Clarification to catalog-pg-class
References: <200902071705.n17H5XS17017@momjian.us>
In-Reply-To: <200902071705.n17H5XS17017@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bruce,

>> Currently, catalog-pg-class is a bit confusing as to where FKs are 
>> tracked in pg_class.  Please update the lines for relchecks and 
>> reltriggers to read:
>>
>> relchecks	int2	 	 Number of check constraints on the table (but not 
>> other types of constraints); see pg_constraint catalog
> 
> Uh, why do we have to say "but" when we clearly say "check constraints"?
> Do we need to say "CHECK" contraints?

Because I've encountered two people on IRC (and a client) who were 
confused about this, and it confused me briefly when I fielded their 
questions.  Saying "CHECK constraints" would also probably do it, or 
saying "check constraints (only)"

BTW, why do we still have relukeys etc. around?  If we haven't used them 
in 5 versions, shouldn't we purge them?

> 
>> reltriggers	int2	 	Number of triggers on the table, including 
>> constraint-triggers for foreign keys; see pg_trigger catalog
> 
> pg_class doesn't have that column anymore, it has relhastriggers.

Ah.  Where are we tracking FKs at this point, then?

--Josh