| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(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 22:17:28 |
| Message-ID: | 2770080.1598393848@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2020-Aug-25, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> 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.
I think it's a good idea too.
> (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 wonder if it would look better if we suppress the horizontal rules
between the operator names within a cell. IIRC, it's possible to do
that, though the exact incantation isn't coming to mind right now.
> I suppose a commit would change all the index AMs where we document this
> kind of thing.
Yeah, we should make all these sorts of tables consistent.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2020-08-25 22:22:25 | Re: ALTER SYSTEM between upgrades |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-08-25 22:10:28 | Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error? |