Re: Adding an explaining title to Notes on SGML

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Adding an explaining title to Notes on SGML
Date: 2026-04-25 13:35:39
Message-ID: 45fdd7f7-83d6-4208-8ec1-a65e224b8514@eisentraut.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 23.04.26 15:33, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> Em qui., 23 de abr. de 2026 às 09:27, David G. Johnston
> <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>> escreveu:
>
> Use a footnote, but add entries for any/some to the table and
> use the description to say they are not implemented and to use
> bool_and/bool_or instead, then anchor the footnote at these entries.
>
>
> Honestly, I'd like to remove all footnotes. The watermark identifying
> them is so small that many people don't even see that it's a link, and
> the fact that it's at the bottom of the page makes it even more isolated
> from the text it refers to.
> Another thing I've been thinking about is the "see below". Because it
> doesn't have a link and in some cases is placed within a large
> paragraph, that "see below" appears very far away, and the user also
> doesn't know how to find it.

I agree, new footnotes should be avoided.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2026-04-25 13:38:10 Re: ri_LockPKTuple misleading message
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2026-04-25 12:26:51 Re: uuidv7 improperly accepts dates before 1970-01-01