From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Steven Pousty <steve.pousty@gmail.com>,
        Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
        Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>,
        Pierre Giraud <pierre.giraud@dalibo.com>,
        PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
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>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 17 Apr 2020 16:40:25 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <10486.1587169645.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 20:27:25 -0400
Message-ID: <10487.1587169645@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"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