From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
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: | 2020-04-14 05:23:37 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.2004140714090.27777@pseudo |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Tom,
> Before I spend more time on this, I want to make sure that people
> are happy with this line of attack.
+1
I like it this way, because the structure is quite readable, which is the
point.
My 0.02€:
Maybe column heander "Example Result" should be simply "Result", because
it is already on the same line as "Example" on its left, and "Example |
Example Result" looks redundant.
Maybe the signature and description lines could be exchanged: I'm more
interested and the description first, and the signature just above the
example would make sense.
I'm wondering whether the function/operator name should be vertically
centered in its cell? I'd left it left justified.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2020-04-14 05:46:45 | Re: Properly mark NULL returns in numeric aggregates |
Previous Message | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi | 2020-04-14 04:18:42 | Re: variation of row_number with parallel |