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

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> I think one thing that was throwing me off was having the function
> signature before the description. I would recommend flipping them: have
> the function description first, followed by signature, followed be
> examples. I think that follows the natural flow more of what one is
> doing when they look up the function.

The trouble with that is it doesn't work very well when we have
multiple similarly-named functions with different signatures.
Consider what the two enum_range() entries in 9.33 will look like,
for example. I think we need the signature to establish which function
we're talking about.

> There are probably some things we can do with shading on the pgweb side
> to make items more distinguishable, I don't think that would be too
> terrible to add.

Per David's earlier comment, it seems like alternating backgrounds might
be feasible if we can get it down to one <row> per function, as the
version I just posted has.

regards, tom lane