From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
In-reply-to: <aa9cb88f-798e-fbe6-6d9b-a64fef67f5cb@postgresql.org>
References: <8691.1586798003@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <ca043747-da88-9b84-1fc1-94d98e708edf@postgresql.org>
 <32160.1586818293@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <4dae4ff3-dcb3-3688-2671-bfef9b94c4b5@postgresql.org>
 <aa9cb88f-798e-fbe6-6d9b-a64fef67f5cb@postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:38:15 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3134.1586822100.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:55:00 -0400
Message-ID: <3135.1586822100@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
> On 4/13/20 7:02 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> Perhaps a counterproposal: We eliminate the content in the leftmost
>> "function column, but leave that there to allow the function name /
>> signature to span the full 3 columns. Then the rest of the info goes
>> below. This will also compress the table height down a bit.

> An attempt at a "POC" of what I'm describing (attached image).

Hmm ... what is determining the width of the left-hand column?
It doesn't seem to have any content, since the function entries
are being spanned across the whole table.

I think the main practical problem though is that it wouldn't
work nicely for operators, since the key "name" you'd be looking
for would not be at the left of the signature line.  I suppose we
don't necessarily have to have the same layout for operators as
for functions, but it feels like it'd be jarringly inconsistent.

			regards, tom lane