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

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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