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

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date: 2020-04-13 21:26:10
Message-ID: CAKFQuwbySB9vwjhOLb7LSMznfoJ4_8LS+P1tXoG0pAnYKK5OPA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:57 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Actually ... if we did it like that, then it would be possible to treat
> the signature + description + example(s) as one big table cell with line
> breaks rather than row-separator bars.

> That would help address the
> inadequate-visual-separation-between-groups issue, but on the other hand
> maybe we'd end up with too little visual separation between the elements
> of a function description.
>

Speaking in terms of HTML if we use <hr /> instead of <br /> we would get
the best of both worlds.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-04-13 21:42:56 Re: documenting the backup manifest file format
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2020-04-13 21:24:40 Re: doc review for parallel vacuum