From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:13:23 -0400
Message-ID: <8691.1586798003@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
As discussed in the thread at [1], I've been working on redesigning
the tables we use to present SQL functions and operators. The
first installment of that is now up; see tables 9.30 and 9.31 at
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-datetime.html
and table 9.33 at
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-enum.html
Before I spend more time on this, I want to make sure that people
are happy with this line of attack. Comparing these tables to
the way they look in v12, they clearly take more vertical space;
but at least to my eye they're less cluttered and more readable.
They definitely scale a lot better for cases where a long function
description is needed, or where we'd like to have more than one
example. Does anyone prefer the old way, or have a better idea?
I know that the table headings are a bit weirdly laid out; hopefully
that can be resolved [2].
regards, tom lane
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/9326.1581457869%40sss.pgh.pa.us
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6169.1586794603%40sss.pgh.pa.us
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
In-Reply-To: <8691.1586798003@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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