Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwamrEtOp2swR38MWNNYatu_L2YUMjNO=Nw3kKRvMymOCQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:38 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 8:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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.
I too like the layout result.
Glad you like 'em ;-). Do you have an opinion about what to do
with the operator tables --- ie do we need a column with the operator
name at the left?
I feel like writing them as:
+ (date, integer) -> date
makes more sense as they are mainly sorted on the operator symbol as opposed to the left operand.
I think the description line is beneficial, and easy enough to skim over for the trained eye just looking for a refresher on the example syntax.
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: