> On Jan 15, 2026, at 17:53, Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jan 15, 2026, at 17:20, Tatsuro Yamada <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chao-san,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments!
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 4:20 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 3
>>> ```
>>> ---- \dCN doesn't show constraints related to domain,
>>> ---- since \dD can be used to check them
>>> ```
>>>
>>> I saw this in the test script, should we mention that in the doc change?
>>
>> Tom also commented on constraints related to domains, and I would like to
>> discuss and decide whether to include them in the \dCN command.
>>
>> Depending on the decision, I am considering the following changes:
>>
>> - If they are included:
>> - Remove the above test case from the regression tests
>> - If they are not included:
>> - Add the reason for excluding them to the documentation
>>
>> Which do you think is better? Should domain constraints be covered by \dCN?
>> I would appreciate your feedback.
>
> I had a feeling while reviewing the patch but I didn’t raise it because I was
> not firm minded. As you ask, this is just my personal opinion, you may ignore
> if you don’t consider reasonable.
>
> This patch claims “constraints”, but it actually only shows table
> constraints. How, we can see the code comment says "Describes constraints”,
> the command message says "List of constraints”, I think that’s where the
> discussion came from.
>
> Maybe an easy way to go is something like renaming the command to \dTCN,
> making it specific to table constraints.
I just want to add that, I am not sure if “table constraints” is a proper
group, and I didn’t intend to suggest a new command name as \dTCN. My point was
to make the feature scope more specific, and make the command name better
reflect to the scope.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
