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

On 2020-Apr-13, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

> On 4/13/20 7:02 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

> > Perhaps a counterproposal: We eliminate the content in the leftmost
> > "function column, but leave that there to allow the function name /
> > signature to span the full 3 columns. Then the rest of the info goes
> > below. This will also compress the table height down a bit.
>
> An attempt at a "POC" of what I'm describing (attached image).
>
> I'm not sure if I 100% like it, but it does reduce the amount of
> information we're displaying but conveys all the details (and matches
> what we have in the previous version).

Ooh, this seems a nice idea -- the indentation seems to be sufficient to
tell apart entries from each other. Your point about information
reduction refers to the fact that we no longer keep the unadorned name
but only the signature, right? That seems an improvement to me now that
I look at it.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services