Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39106632220
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  5 Sep 2010 23:17:11 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 75014-04 for
	<pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  6 Sep 2010 02:17:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF16632595
	for <pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org>; Sun,  5 Sep 2010 23:17:03 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o862GvOJ005763;
	Sun, 5 Sep 2010 22:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS 
In-reply-to: <1283712463.12666.7.camel@vanquo.pezone.net> 
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008311337530.2449@localhost.localdomain>
	<2683.1283266019@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1009011557480.2570@localhost.localdomain>
	<1283369900.15386.0.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1009020741380.2656@localhost.localdomain>
	<1283438419.23199.0.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1009021959070.2656@localhost.localdomain>
	<6462.1283454730@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1009031348321.2448@localhost.localdomain>
	<22801.1283525905@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1009031920460.2622@localhost.localdomain>
	<1283535870-sup-2648@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<26284.1283536406@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1283712463.12666.7.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
	message dated "Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:47:43 +0300"
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 22:16:57 -0400
Message-ID: <5762.1283739417@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201009/34
X-Sequence-Number: 6024

[ redirecting to pgsql-docs ]

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On fre, 2010-09-03 at 13:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It would probably be reasonable to put something into chapter 34 of the
>> docs pointing out this limitation.  I'm not sure exactly where though.
>> Should we invent a "compatibility issues" section in that chapter,
>> analogous to the ones we have for individual SQL commands?  Are there
>> other issues worth documenting for the information_schema views?

> A very similar issue is already documented here:
> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/infoschema-triggers.html

That sort of annotation was my first thought, but we'd have to repeat
ourselves in multiple places because there are several views that are
affected by the constraint-name issue.  (Come to think of it, isn't
triggered_update_columns also affected by the trigger-name issue?)

Is that the direction we want to go, or would it be better to factor
the information out into a separate page about compatibility gotchas?

			regards, tom lane