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 1jOO1p-0006Ym-5l for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 16:03:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jOO1m-00061o-Kh for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 16:03:10 +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 1jOO1m-00061h-Dw for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 16:03:10 +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 1jOO1f-00077C-Ul for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 16:03:10 +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 03EG306F023593; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 12:03:00 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Alvaro Herrera , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? In-reply-to: References: <20200413180758.GA12210@alvherre.pgsql> <13150.1586803647@sss.pgh.pa.us> <17589.1586809747@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20842.1586877979@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Tue, 14 Apr 2020 11:47:12 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <23591.1586880180.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 12:03:00 -0400 Message-ID: <23592.1586880180@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Robert Haas writes: > At any rate, if the price of more clarity and more examples is that > the tables become three times as long and harder to read, I am > somewhat inclined to think that the cure is worse than the disease. I > can readily see how something like table 9.10 (Other String Functions) > might be a mess on a narrow screen or in PDF format, but it's an > extremely useful table on a normal-size screen in HTML format, and > part of what makes it useful is that it's compact. Almost anything we > do is going to remove some of that compactness to save horizontal > space. Maybe that's OK, but it's sure not great. It's nice to be able > to see more on one screen. I dunno, it doesn't look to me like 9.10 is some paragon of efficient use of screen space, even with a wide window. (And my goodness it looks bad if I try a window about half my usual web-browsing width.) Maybe I should go convert that one to see what it looks like in one of the other layouts being discussed. regards, tom lane