pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Steven Pousty <steve.pousty@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Giraud <pierre.giraud@dalibo.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 20:27:25 -0400
Message-ID: <10487.1587169645@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKFQuwaF1gAwr890ph0W6hj9cJOENo9Fqw8EO8QT6EQYq7E9ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200416230304.GA28390@alvherre.pgsql>
	<17560.1587083109@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoYP2Lx=e1EbkJo-EVH6nWP8=+Rbu=u3LcnzWvh=VY47zA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20266.1587148695@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKFQuwamrEtOp2swR38MWNNYatu_L2YUMjNO=Nw3kKRvMymOCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<6099.1587164691@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKFQuwZhr5-dpRVWhHqxHVDEsenYoNuFuCKN66mvRxdykBzLGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6655.1587165419@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKFQuwaF1gAwr890ph0W6hj9cJOENo9Fqw8EO8QT6EQYq7E9ZQ@mail.gmail.com>

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:17 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> We do have some postfix operators still ... although it looks like
>> there's only one in core.  In any case, the signature line is *the*
>> thing that is supposed to specify what the syntax is, so I'm not
>> too pleased with using an ambiguous notation for it.

> Neither:
> - (NONE, integer)
> nor
> ! (integer, NONE)
> seem bad, and do make very obvious how they are different.

> The left margin scanning ability for the symbol (hey, I have an expression
> here that uses @>, what does that do?) seems worth the bit of novelty
> required.

Meh.  If we're worried about that, personally I'd much rather put
back the separate left-hand column with just the operator name.

We could also experiment with bold-facing the operator names,
as somebody suggested upthread.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (113+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <10487.1587169645@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../10487.1587169645@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/10487.1587169645@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, steve.pousty@gmail.com, pavel.stehule@gmail.com, isaac.morland@gmail.com, pierre.giraud@dalibo.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
  In-Reply-To: <10487.1587169645@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox