Horton

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

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Steven Pousty <steve.pousty@gmail.com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>, Pierre Giraud <pierre.giraud@dalibo.com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-04-18T00:27:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:17 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> We do have some postfix operators still ... although it looks like
>> there's only one in core.  In any case, the signature line is *the*
>> thing that is supposed to specify what the syntax is, so I'm not
>> too pleased with using an ambiguous notation for it.

> Neither:
> - (NONE, integer)
> nor
> ! (integer, NONE)
> seem bad, and do make very obvious how they are different.

> The left margin scanning ability for the symbol (hey, I have an expression
> here that uses @>, what does that do?) seems worth the bit of novelty
> required.

Meh.  If we're worried about that, personally I'd much rather put
back the separate left-hand column with just the operator name.

We could also experiment with bold-facing the operator names,
as somebody suggested upthread.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Doc: re-re-revise markup for tables of functions.

  2. Doc: revise formatting of function/operator tables.