Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I just wonder if there's too much clutter here. Like, line 1:

> date - interval → timestamp

> OK, gotcha. Line 2:

> Subtract an interval from a date

> Well, is that really adding anything non-obvious?

Yeah, back in the other thread I said

>>> I decided to try converting the date/time operators table too, to
>>> see how well this works for that. It's bulkier than before, but
>>> also (I think) more precise. I realized that this table actually
>>> had three examples already for float8 * interval, but it wasn't
>>> at all obvious that they were the same operator. So that aspect
>>> is a lot nicer here. On the other hand, it seems like the text
>>> descriptions are only marginally useful here. I can imagine that
>>> they would be useful in some other operator tables, such as
>>> geometric operators, but I'm a bit tempted to leave them out
>>> in this particular table. The format would adapt to that easily.

I wouldn't be averse to dropping the text descriptions for operators
in places where they seem obvious ... but who decides what is obvious?

Indeed, we've gotten more than one complaint in the past that some of the
geometric and JSON operators require a longer explanation than they've
got. So one of the points here was to have a format that could adapt to
that. But in this particular table I agree they're marginal.

regards, tom lane