| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 18:26:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYP2Lx=e1EbkJo-EVH6nWP8=+Rbu=u3LcnzWvh=VY47zA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 8:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Attached are screenshots of the same segment of table 9.10 as before
> and of the initial portion of 9.30, the patch against HEAD to produce
> these, and a hacky patch on the website's main.css to get it to go
> along. Without the last you just get all the subsidiary stuff
> left-justified if you build with STYLE=website, which isn't impossibly
> unreadable but it's not the desired presentation.
These seem very nice, and way more readable than the version with
which you started the thread.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-17 18:38:15 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-04-17 18:21:51 | Re: xid wraparound danger due to INDEX_CLEANUP false |