Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B515632430
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:13:50 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 87675-05 for
	<pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:13:46 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from gattler.pezone.net (eisentraut.org [85.214.91.16])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8D56321A6
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:13:46 -0400 (AST)
Received: from dhcp-eesp05-101-234.Finland.Sun.COM (gmp-ea-fw-1.sun.com
	[192.18.1.36])
	by gattler.pezone.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5902715F04E4;
	Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:13:44 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <499539C6.9030700@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:13:42 +0200
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
CC: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Clarification to catalog-pg-class
References: <200902120317.n1C3HCO16080@momjian.us>
In-Reply-To: <200902120317.n1C3HCO16080@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200902/10
X-Sequence-Number: 5056

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>> 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)"
>>> Uppercase done, with <literal> tag.
>> This is inconsistent with the rest of the documentation.
> 
> Should I use <emphasis>?  <literal>?

<emphasis> would be appropriate, but I personally don't really buy the 
premise.  If we had to highlight every idiosyncracy in the catalog 
fields, it would end up looking quite colorful.

I suppose a more constructive point would be, where are the other 
constraint types kept track of?