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?