Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes: > My 0.02€: I'm wondering whether the description could/should match SQL > syntax, eg:
> oid OID > adrelid OID REFERENCES pg_class(oid) > adnum INT2 REFERENCES pg_attribute(attnum) > … > Or maybe just uppercase type names, especially when repeated? Meh. I'm not a fan of overuse of upper case --- it's well established that that's harder to read than lower or mixed case. And it's definitely project policy that type names are generally treated as identifiers not keywords, even if some of them happen to be keywords under the hood. The markup I had in mind was <structfield> for the field name and <type> for the type name, but no decoration beyond that. As for the references, it seems to me that your notation would lead people to think that there are actual FK constraints in place, which of course there are not (especially not on the views). I'm not hugely against it but I prefer what I suggested. > I guess that reference targets would still be navigable. Yeah, they'd still have <link> wrappers --- if I recall what those look like in the documentation sources, they don't need any change except for addition of the "(references ...)" text. regards, tom lane