| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tomáš Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions |
| Date: | 2015-11-08 21:46:59 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY+1aucvEtRBS=Kdit7kp-8BEFgHe-9rWS_TneXvsohsw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> After looking at the generated html version, I find that the "1/param" and
> "2/param" formula are very simple and pretty easy to read, and they would
> not be really enhanced with additional spacing.
>
> ISTM that adaptative spacing (no spacing for level 1 operations, some for
> higher level) is a good approach for readability, ie:
>
> f(i) - f(i+1)
> ^ no spacing here
> ^ some spacing here
>
> So I would suggest to keep the submitted version, unless this is a blocker.
Well, I think with the ".0" version it looks more like floating-point
math, and I like the extra white-space. But I'm happy to hear other
opinions.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-08 21:49:20 | Re: Some questions about the array. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-11-08 21:29:56 | Re: Uh-oh: documentation PDF output no longer builds in HEAD |