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

From: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date: 2020-04-13 17:52:25
Message-ID: 8337094ada1541802435f5bb185b5c78@xs4all.nl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-04-13 19:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> As discussed in the thread at [1], I've been working on redesigning
> the tables we use to present SQL functions and operators. The
> first installment of that is now up; see tables 9.30 and 9.31 at
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-datetime.html
>
> and table 9.33 at
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-enum.html
>
> Before I spend more time on this, I want to make sure that people
> are happy with this line of attack. Comparing these tables to
> the way they look in v12, they clearly take more vertical space;
> but at least to my eye they're less cluttered and more readable.
> They definitely scale a lot better for cases where a long function
> description is needed, or where we'd like to have more than one
> example. Does anyone prefer the old way, or have a better idea?
>

+1

In the pdf it is a big improvement; and the html is better too.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2020-04-13 17:55:53 Re: documenting the backup manifest file format
Previous Message Robert Haas 2020-04-13 17:40:56 documenting the backup manifest file format