From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
In-reply-to: <7e308f71-08e1-fb52-1ae0-c897c4eeb1a8@2ndQuadrant.com>
References: <8691.1586798003@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <7e308f71-08e1-fb52-1ae0-c897c4eeb1a8@2ndQuadrant.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Mon, 13 Apr 2020 16:20:38 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <17815.1586810032.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 16:33:52 -0400
Message-ID: <17816.1586810032@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> One thing that did occur to me is that the function/operator name is
> essentially redundant, as it's in the signature anyway. Not sure if that
> helps us any though.

Hm, you have a point there.  However, if we drop the lefthand column
then there really isn't any visual distinction between the row(s)
associated with one function and those of the next.  Unless we can
find another fix for that aspect (as already discussed in this thread)
I doubt it'd be an improvement.

> Maybe we're just trying to shoehorn too much information into a single
> table.

Yeah, back at the beginning of this exercise, Alvaro wondered aloud
if we should go to something other than tables altogether.  I dunno
what that'd look like though.

			regards, tom lane