so 18. 4. 2020 v 22:36 odesÃlatel Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:30 PM David G. Johnston > > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 thought about that, too, but I think the way Tom did it is better. > > It's much more natural to see it using the syntax with which it will > > actually be invoked. > > Just for the record, I experimented with putting back an "operator name" > column, as attached. I think it could be argued either way whether this > is an improvement or not. > > Some notes: > > * The column seems annoyingly wide, but the only way to make it narrower > is to narrow or eliminate the column title, which could be confusing. > Also, if there's not a fair amount of whitespace, it looks as if the > initial name is part of the signature, which is *really* confusing, > cf second screenshot. (I'm not sure why the vertical rule is rendered > so much more weakly in this case, but it is.) > > * I also tried it with valign="middle" to center the operator name among > its entries. This was *not* an improvement, it largely breaks the > ability to see which entries belong to the name. > first variant looks better, because column with operator is wider. Maybe it can look better if a content will be places to mid point. In left upper corner it is less readable. Regards Pavel > regards, tom lane > >
