| From: | Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Date: | 2020-04-20 10:38:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAGnEbohsoL80JCUTaR6Pp1_pTHper7c6yWVvYU16nYzcPkqTQQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
вс, 19 апр. 2020 г. в 20:00, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> In the meantime I plan to push forward with the markup approach we've
> got. The editorial content should still work if we find a better
> markup answer, and I'm willing to do the work of replacing the markup
> as long as somebody else figures out what it should be.
>
I am following this thread as a frequent documentation user.
While table 9.5 with functions looks quite nice, I quite dislike 9.4 with
operators.
Previously, I could lookup operator in the leftmost column and read on.
Right now I have to look through the whole table (well, not really, but
still) to find the operator.
--
Victor Yegorov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2020-04-20 10:43:22 | Re: Allow pg_read_all_stats to read pg_stat_progress_* |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-04-20 10:24:28 | Re: 001_rep_changes.pl stalls |