From: Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 21:22:36 -0400
Message-ID: <1c5ca197-f7f2-0300-46ce-4652c7f81d48@postgresql.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <11106.1588205727@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20200423174343.GA16996@alvherre.pgsql>
<19233.1587665407@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<5561.1587922854@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<13e5e408-bc59-e8ca-44f3-28a981b4fc7d@postgresql.org>
<a47ea348-b9a0-02b7-5bcb-7a32143dd16f@postgresql.org>
<11211.1587951842@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<58de9544-be5b-f325-b5cc-cce4e2dda7d9@postgresql.org>
<5651.1587991781@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<b998a672-2525-1cba-ac64-b292f495919e@postgresql.org>
<30469.1588087170@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<8682.1588202983@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4894cde4-148d-f0cc-d6d8-182a46f13e1b@postgresql.org>
<06f6b32d-a4cc-3723-5bc1-00fa674df961@postgresql.org>
<11106.1588205727@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 4/29/20 8:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
>> On 4/29/20 7:40 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>>> I'll compromise on the temporary importants, but first I want to see
>>> what's causing the need for it. Do you have a suggestion on a page to test?
>
> I haven't yet pushed anything dependent on the new markup, but
> attached is a draft revision for the JSON section; if you look at
> the SRFs such as json_array_elements you'll see the issue.
>
>> From real quick I got it to here. With the latest copy of the doc builds
>> it appears to still work as expected, but I need a section with the new
>> "pre" block to test.
>
> Yeah, I see you found the same <p> and <pre> settings I did.
>
>> I think the "background-color: inherit !important" is a bit odd, and
>> would like to trace that one down a bit more, but I did not see anything
>> obvious on my glance through it.
>
> I think it's coming from this bit at about main.css:660:
>
> pre,
> code,
> #docContent kbd,
> #docContent tt.LITERAL,
> #docContent tt.REPLACEABLE {
> font-size: 0.9rem !important;
> color: inherit !important;
> background-color: #f8f9fa !important;
> border-radius: .25rem;
> margin: .6rem 0;
> font-weight: 300;
> }
>
> I had to override most of that.
Yeah, I had started toying with that and saw no differences, but I would
need to test against anything in particular. I'm pretty confident we can
remove those importants, based on my desultory testing.
I'll try and get the patch built + docs loaded, and see if we can safely
remove those.
Jonathan
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832B) download
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: jkatz@postgresql.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.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: <1c5ca197-f7f2-0300-46ce-4652c7f81d48@postgresql.org>
* 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