| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-www(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Weird table alignment override in website docs style |
| Date: | 2020-04-14 23:11:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZeYSP7BC+YMRgbxTVv=yW11bt_aFrF4TAaD6YEJ3P+Sw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:29 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
wrote:
> However, I would be a -1 for doing it by PostgreSQL version, but rather
> have it for "table version" as the table versions change less.
>
Agreed, but there isn't presently a table version value. We could call
unversioned tables "version 1" and then these become "version 2". Or we
can call them "version 12 (13?)" after the version where they were first
defined/introduced. We wouldn't change them annually.
Using numbers at all implies order which really doesn't apply here so a
noun label seems preferable to a numeric one anyway.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-04-15 07:45:20 | Re: Weird table alignment override in website docs style |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2020-04-14 22:29:19 | Re: Weird table alignment override in website docs style |