From: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:23:37 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2004140714090.27777@pseudo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8691.1586798003@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <8691.1586798003@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Hello Tom,
> Before I spend more time on this, I want to make sure that people
> are happy with this line of attack.
+1
I like it this way, because the structure is quite readable, which is the
point.
My 0.02€:
Maybe column heander "Example Result" should be simply "Result", because
it is already on the same line as "Example" on its left, and "Example |
Example Result" looks redundant.
Maybe the signature and description lines could be exchanged: I'm more
interested and the description first, and the signature just above the
example would make sense.
I'm wondering whether the function/operator name should be vertically
centered in its cell? I'd left it left justified.
--
Fabien.
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: coelho@cri.ensmp.fr, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2004140714090.27777@pseudo>
* 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