| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Date: | 2020-04-20 16:49:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20157.1587401360@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> While table 9.5 with functions looks quite nice, I quite dislike 9.4 with
> operators.
BTW, I think a big part of the problem with table 9.4 as it's being
rendered in the web style right now is that the type placeholders
(numeric_type etc) are being rendered in a ridiculously overemphasized
fashion, causing them to overwhelm all else. Do we really want
<replaceable> to be rendered that way? I'd think plain italic,
comparable to the rendering of <parameter>, would be more appropriate.
I could make this page use <parameter> for that purpose of course,
but it seems like semantically the wrong thing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-04-20 17:32:31 | Re: Adding missing object access hook invocations |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2020-04-20 15:45:39 | Re: More efficient RI checks - take 2 |