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

On 4/13/20 7:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> On 4/13/20 7:02 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>>> Perhaps a counterproposal: We eliminate the content in the leftmost
>>> "function column, but leave that there to allow the function name /
>>> signature to span the full 3 columns. Then the rest of the info goes
>>> below. This will also compress the table height down a bit.
>> An attempt at a "POC" of what I'm describing (attached image).
> Hmm ... what is determining the width of the left-hand column?
> It doesn't seem to have any content, since the function entries
> are being spanned across the whole table.
>
> I think the main practical problem though is that it wouldn't
> work nicely for operators, since the key "name" you'd be looking
> for would not be at the left of the signature line. I suppose we
> don't necessarily have to have the same layout for operators as
> for functions, but it feels like it'd be jarringly inconsistent.
>
>

Maybe highlight the item by bolding or colour?

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services