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

From: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Steven Pousty <steve(dot)pousty(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pierre Giraud <pierre(dot)giraud(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date: 2020-04-30 02:04:39
Message-ID: ab7803b4-f985-cf3d-267f-38b7311ca917@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4/29/20 9:22 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 4/29/20 8:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>>> On 4/29/20 7:40 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>>>> I'll compromise on the temporary importants, but first I want to see
>>>> what's causing the need for it. Do you have a suggestion on a page to test?
>>
>> I haven't yet pushed anything dependent on the new markup, but
>> attached is a draft revision for the JSON section; if you look at
>> the SRFs such as json_array_elements you'll see the issue.

^ This was super helpful. Built locally, and made it really easy to
test. Thanks!

>>> From real quick I got it to here. With the latest copy of the doc builds
>>> it appears to still work as expected, but I need a section with the new
>>> "pre" block to test.
>>
>> Yeah, I see you found the same <p> and <pre> settings I did.
>>
>>> I think the "background-color: inherit !important" is a bit odd, and
>>> would like to trace that one down a bit more, but I did not see anything
>>> obvious on my glance through it.
>>
>> I think it's coming from this bit at about main.css:660:
>>
>> pre,
>> code,
>> #docContent kbd,
>> #docContent tt.LITERAL,
>> #docContent tt.REPLACEABLE {
>> font-size: 0.9rem !important;
>> color: inherit !important;
>> background-color: #f8f9fa !important;
>> border-radius: .25rem;
>> margin: .6rem 0;
>> font-weight: 300;
>> }
>>
>> I had to override most of that.
>
> Yeah, I had started toying with that and saw no differences, but I would
> need to test against anything in particular. I'm pretty confident we can
> remove those importants, based on my desultory testing.
>
> I'll try and get the patch built + docs loaded, and see if we can safely
> remove those.

Please see latest attached. I've eliminated the !important, condensed
the CSS, and the desultory (yes, my word of the week) testing did not
find issues in devel or earlier versions.

Please let me know if this works for you. If it does, I'll push it up to
pgweb.

Jonathan

Attachment Content-Type Size
website-style-v4.patch text/plain 1.3 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-04-30 02:30:15 Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots
Previous Message Richard Guo 2020-04-30 01:37:41 Re: Remove unnecessary relabel stripping