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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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: 2020-04-17 20:22:26
Message-ID: 25086.1587154946@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 3:58 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> On the other point of dispute about the operator tables: for the
>> moment I'm leaning towards keeping the text descriptions.

> I mostly suggested nuking them just to try to make the table more
> readable. But since you've found another (and better) solution to that
> problem, I withdraw that suggestion.

Cool, then we're all on the same page. I shall press forward.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2020-04-17 20:39:43 Re: snapshot too old issues, first around wraparound and then more.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-04-17 20:20:42 Re: return value from pq_putmessage() is widely ignored