Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jOMw3-00042Z-Mn for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:53:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jOMw1-000864-6g for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:53:09 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jOMw0-00085x-W8 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:53:08 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jOMvt-0006aJ-O1 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:53:08 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 03EEqxXw019228; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:52:59 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andreas Karlsson cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? In-reply-to: <97111ed7-0027-2e76-a899-910c3373ec44@proxel.se> References: <8691.1586798003@sss.pgh.pa.us> <6c7e5aff-3cb1-ce29-c2f5-0074703555f6@proxel.se> <18165.1586874544@sss.pgh.pa.us> <97111ed7-0027-2e76-a899-910c3373ec44@proxel.se> Comments: In-reply-to Andreas Karlsson message dated "Tue, 14 Apr 2020 16:39:44 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <19226.1586875979.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:52:59 -0400 Message-ID: <19227.1586875979@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Andreas Karlsson writes: > That said, I agree with that quite many of our tables right now are > ugly, but I prefer ugly to hard to read. For me the mix of having every > third row split into two fields makes the tables very hard to read. I > have a hard time seeing which rows belong to which function. Did you look at the variants without that discussed downthread? regards, tom lane