On 4/13/20 1:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > As discussed in the thread at [1], I've been working on redesigning > the tables we use to present SQL functions and operators. The > first installment of that is now up; see tables 9.30 and 9.31 at > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-datetime.html > > and table 9.33 at > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-enum.html > > Before I spend more time on this, I want to make sure that people > are happy with this line of attack. Comparing these tables to > the way they look in v12, they clearly take more vertical space; > but at least to my eye they're less cluttered and more readable. > They definitely scale a lot better for cases where a long function > description is needed, or where we'd like to have more than one > example. Does anyone prefer the old way, or have a better idea? > > I know that the table headings are a bit weirdly laid out; hopefully > that can be resolved [2]. > > regards, tom lane > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/9326.1581457869%40sss.pgh.pa.us > [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6169.1586794603%40sss.pgh.pa.us >
Gotta say I'm not a huge fan. I appreciate the effort, and I get the problem, but I'm not sure we have a net improvement here. One thing that did occur to me is that the function/operator name is essentially redundant, as it's in the signature anyway. Not sure if that helps us any though. Maybe we're just trying to shoehorn too much information into a single table. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
