| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Date: | 2020-04-13 17:13:23 |
| Message-ID: | 8691.1586798003@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
As discussed in the thread at [1], I've been working on redesigning
the tables we use to present SQL functions and operators. The
first installment of that is now up; see tables 9.30 and 9.31 at
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-datetime.html
and table 9.33 at
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-enum.html
Before I spend more time on this, I want to make sure that people
are happy with this line of attack. Comparing these tables to
the way they look in v12, they clearly take more vertical space;
but at least to my eye they're less cluttered and more readable.
They definitely scale a lot better for cases where a long function
description is needed, or where we'd like to have more than one
example. Does anyone prefer the old way, or have a better idea?
I know that the table headings are a bit weirdly laid out; hopefully
that can be resolved [2].
regards, tom lane
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/9326.1581457869%40sss.pgh.pa.us
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6169.1586794603%40sss.pgh.pa.us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jesse Zhang | 2020-04-13 17:34:00 | Re: Properly mark NULL returns in numeric aggregates |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-04-13 16:47:15 | Re: cleaning perl code |