| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Steven Pousty <steve(dot)pousty(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pierre Giraud <pierre(dot)giraud(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Date: | 2020-04-18 00:27:25 |
| Message-ID: | 10487.1587169645@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:17 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> We do have some postfix operators still ... although it looks like
>> there's only one in core. In any case, the signature line is *the*
>> thing that is supposed to specify what the syntax is, so I'm not
>> too pleased with using an ambiguous notation for it.
> Neither:
> - (NONE, integer)
> nor
> ! (integer, NONE)
> seem bad, and do make very obvious how they are different.
> The left margin scanning ability for the symbol (hey, I have an expression
> here that uses @>, what does that do?) seems worth the bit of novelty
> required.
Meh. If we're worried about that, personally I'd much rather put
back the separate left-hand column with just the operator name.
We could also experiment with bold-facing the operator names,
as somebody suggested upthread.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Coleman | 2020-04-18 00:43:04 | Summary: State of Caching Stable Subexpressions |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-17 23:44:08 | Re: where should I stick that backup? |