From: Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:02:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4dae4ff3-dcb3-3688-2671-bfef9b94c4b5@postgresql.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <32160.1586818293@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <8691.1586798003@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<ca043747-da88-9b84-1fc1-94d98e708edf@postgresql.org>
<32160.1586818293@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 4/13/20 6:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
>> I think one thing that was throwing me off was having the function
>> signature before the description. I would recommend flipping them: have
>> the function description first, followed by signature, followed be
>> examples. I think that follows the natural flow more of what one is
>> doing when they look up the function.
>
> The trouble with that is it doesn't work very well when we have
> multiple similarly-named functions with different signatures.
> Consider what the two enum_range() entries in 9.33 will look like,
> for example. I think we need the signature to establish which function
> we're talking about.
I get that, I just find I'm doing too much thinking looking at it.
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.
>> There are probably some things we can do with shading on the pgweb side
>> to make items more distinguishable, I don't think that would be too
>> terrible to add.
>
> Per David's earlier comment, it seems like alternating backgrounds might
> be feasible if we can get it down to one <row> per function, as the
> version I just posted has.
or a classname on the "<tr>" when a new function starts or the like.
Easy enough to get the CSS to work off of that :)
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, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
In-Reply-To: <4dae4ff3-dcb3-3688-2671-bfef9b94c4b5@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