I wrote:
> "Most" here is good English, although I concede it's a slightly
> old-fashioned usage. Maybe it'd be clearer to just remove the
> word altogether.
> If we were going to touch this sentence I'd worry about some other
> things too. Use of "catalogs" as a verb is probably not the greatest
> choice right here, since one could easily think that the verb is
> missing and what was meant was "pg_class lists catalogs, [user]
> tables, and ...". Also, I think that the reference to special
> relations is obsolete --- we don't list any relkind for that anymore.
> What probably does deserve to be called out in place of those is
> composite types, since their appearance in pg_class might be pretty
> surprising to newbies.
Hmm, I must have been looking at some old version of the docs, because
when I went to prepare a draft patch I found that those last couple of
points were addressed some time ago. I think we just need some slightly
better wording here rather than any change of technical content.
I propose the attached. (I also modified the para's last sentence to
speak of "kind" not "type", for consistency with the relkind field name
and the rest of the para.)
regards, tom lane
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml
index d17ff51e28..e09adb45e4 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml
@@ -1893,8 +1893,8 @@ SCRAM-SHA-256$:&l
- The catalog pg_class catalogs tables and most
- everything else that has columns or is otherwise similar to a
+ The catalog pg_class describes tables and
+ other objects that have columns or are otherwise similar to a
table. This includes indexes (but see also pg_index),
sequences (but see also :&l
views, materialized views, composite types, and TOAST tables;
see relkind.
Below, when we mean all of these kinds of objects we speak of
- relations. Not all columns are meaningful for all relation
- types.
+ relations. Not all of pg_class's
+ columns are meaningful for all relation kinds.
