From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.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>
 <3135.1586822100@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Autocrypt: addr=andrew.dunstan@2ndQuadrant.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual;
 keydata=
 mQENBE7KWFkBCAClridxur2AIc7eW2AR7izbfp3EnNefie2HbLF0izW5Ik5UjX2HBXBx4syI
 gY6b0ugohXrr274+baoAlvSbq6cAoQuEVrk5IZFzt20b1Xkx65FwGSEj526yiKLocqkJceSq
 Xr9xcA5SGY+FZv441chh5SU92v4q6z+6LPpoHOh97ptAVXZYNTtU0LevyvD5lja0TzbvJm6C
 eFXitJfnm1pLEr0DGJCR/iUOl/N62Kh4855zZC7NHIjQHPOvV5Stz/l5ilDhvGVk+xkXFPys
 SjZoUr1rXhYLpiyi5sR0X9FHXT0KnGuz1F5ERO7ZTLSSQ6fJwPj6gOk9K+vvoKvoeql5ABEB
 AAG0L0FuZHJldyBEdW5zdGFuIDxhbmRyZXcuZHVuc3RhbkAybmRRdWFkcmFudC5jb20+iQFY
 BBMBAgBCAhsDBgsJCAcDAgYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgBYhBOQ+WEYd/Hy/RGkVpZn6f8tZ
 /DuBAhkBBQJd1pSYBQkSzqMsAAoJEJn6f8tZ/DuBJmEIAIVFBIC3qGqh+YTPVTkfowwxpHz0
 tZSPjZ6GS/5y62kgoZrZOVXw+Rg2ceuMM3a+In/RRjTx4bembgYqRKgzXlDfiNBJeq5ioVuN
 H1faDKE2lm5a6QkRQ2JU6DKf60fqSJGP5LisCUr1V0wz6EnlO31ArrKtXCNB+yk0KDAS6o6I
 Ql4pkXpr+vq4iilwJmiJOqTBam0LmQE7ulYCCYU8Z6MkpiSl+dO7QSramcGyxauQRI3a7gcq
 dpo8Vrv3gFTQDeMYxk7cqZp08pIVH5XR0+LgBz4X84f59rA/VAKlC/r6CyEQk59rvDLxCMyP
 2buoj51Z25N3MVghRDGcsU6mT7e5AQ0ETspYWQEIANGc4zQULOxhbqO2dyD51YhqCNRmm9oK
 Waqf+wmW4tpDe/VVcxAnNizd4LWCHfzpb5cHAtGkOPePMfzWVf6nvdF7d3eglbtf59+zG7O7
 llV0xSSoFiieQBsrGvqDInXYX/4mRRXMtyhM353/tixC9RWLs1oofyYmCPPXXY7h9R7en3B8
 BoVrRFcdzlIY/NFNhFGW/9dkEiGjgna2Rk6e15kln4ZvFBWUg23p93w/pqXcxY6+k/8TEk+C
 4R+M6w7o2PLGOjdZ+kPiUcw5H85zf/yZJwQXzisXaNduwWB6Vads9YC9dj6kPR1c4VGRqAaY
 L++LAEOqrlvm2TvqQqZRtnEAEQEAAYkBJQQYAQIADwIbDAUCXdaUtAUJEs6jVQAKCRCZ+n/L
 Wfw7gQi5B/9sHbmRloZNCWWwZGm+O9iG/JGQxS0WWa4GaZqzqSTWOft2/gO0Bgag89r1djq4
 PFgSZtzHvKQpqYz/7HkPrWh1jpcS83i/uYY1uyHXUUtpdEmn4buNObEtD0YNaJkGdhASsECq
 6akw+u7WJYmAHs/SpR6ok6HqLw7JHDVc2h5dViLfTk0qrgDa7sq/LVMoJje5Ct/Ku3YaWAV6
 YSmzoPP5BmPVFqP11OMQkCqurIu9vTLXKFWX623vCmqRDHJ6e5GCDHbH8USU+4wJBfPymZkd
 cA7NGm/mmWeJiWBFIDyjzYxrjku8ty9TZJVsaRXnS+OFQzXz9Eu2wTpKdHij46uY
Message-ID: <fb1061da-89cd-c2c4-0beb-31e8dce6f1cb@2ndQuadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:01:00 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3135.1586822100@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


On 4/13/20 7:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "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.
>
> 			


Maybe highlight the item by bolding or colour?


cheers


andrew

-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services