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?
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
