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

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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