From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
        osdba <mailtch@163.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?
In-reply-to: <20200825221028.GA24594@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20200825221028.GA24594@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:10:28 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2770079.1598393848.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:17:28 -0400
Message-ID: <2770080.1598393848@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2020-Aug-25, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> FWIW, the layout I was thinking about is something like the patch
>> attached.

> This looks to me enough of an improvement that I +1 it, and yes this is
> what I was imagining also.

I think it's a good idea too.

> (With the non-website stylesheet, as in the screenshot you showed, the
> table looks somewhat crammed and visually unappealing; but the website
> stylesheet looks pleasing enough.  Screenshot attached.)

I wonder if it would look better if we suppress the horizontal rules
between the operator names within a cell.  IIRC, it's possible to do
that, though the exact incantation isn't coming to mind right now.

> I suppose a commit would change all the index AMs where we document this
> kind of thing.

Yeah, we should make all these sorts of tables consistent.

			regards, tom lane