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

From: Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>
To: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date: 2020-05-05 11:39:46
Message-ID: CACACo5TJ_X1cUo1zDnyGNusOkZLfxx62UVtS8rHj99K1hKXGaA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:22 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I've now completed updating chapter 9 for the new layout,
> and the results are visible at
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions.html
> There is more to do --- for instance, various contrib modules
> have function/operator tables that should be synced with this
> design. But this seemed like a good place to pause and reflect.
>

Would it be premature to complain about the not-that-great look of Table
9.1 now?

Compare the two attached images: the screenshot from
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-comparison.html
vs the GIMP-assisted pipe dream of mine to align it to the right edge of
the table cell.

I don't have the faintest idea how to achieve that using SGML at the
moment, but it just looks so much nicer to me. ;-)

Regards,
--
Alex

Attachment Content-Type Size
image/png 49.6 KB
image/png 48.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2020-05-05 12:11:32 Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-05-05 11:34:24 Re: PG compilation error with Visual Studio 2015/2017/2019