Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, osdba <mailtch(at)163(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?
Date: 2020-08-25 22:10:28
Message-ID: 20200825221028.GA24594@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On 2020-Aug-25, Michael Paquier wrote:

> I think so. If there are other places, it does not prevent improving
> what we already know needs improvement.
>
> FWIW, the layout I was thinking about is something like the patch
> attached.

This looks to me enough of an improvement that I +1 it, and yes this is
what I was imagining also.

(With the non-website stylesheet, as in the screenshot you showed, the
table looks somewhat crammed and visually unappealing; but the website
stylesheet looks pleasing enough. Screenshot attached.)

> I have only patched GIN to give an idea of the shape of the
> tables.

I suppose a commit would change all the index AMs where we document this
kind of thing.

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

Attachment Content-Type Size
image/png 43.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-08-25 22:17:28 Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2020-08-25 19:27:33 Re: Add comma after e.g. and i.e.?