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

On 4/13/20 6:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> I think one thing that was throwing me off was having the function
>> signature before the description. I would recommend flipping them: have
>> the function description first, followed by signature, followed be
>> examples. I think that follows the natural flow more of what one is
>> doing when they look up the function.
>
> The trouble with that is it doesn't work very well when we have
> multiple similarly-named functions with different signatures.
> Consider what the two enum_range() entries in 9.33 will look like,
> for example. I think we need the signature to establish which function
> we're talking about.

I get that, I just find I'm doing too much thinking looking at it.

Perhaps a counterproposal: We eliminate the content in the leftmost
"function column, but leave that there to allow the function name /
signature to span the full 3 columns. Then the rest of the info goes
below. This will also compress the table height down a bit.

>> There are probably some things we can do with shading on the pgweb side
>> to make items more distinguishable, I don't think that would be too
>> terrible to add.
>
> Per David's earlier comment, it seems like alternating backgrounds might
> be feasible if we can get it down to one <row> per function, as the
> version I just posted has.

or a classname on the "<tr>" when a new function starts or the like.
Easy enough to get the CSS to work off of that :)

Jonathan