Re: Remaining PDF layout issues

I wrote:
> Table 27.4 is annoying: it could be made to work, just barely, with some
> hacking of the column widths and a &zwsp; or two.  But it's not stable
> text so I have little faith in the longevity of such a solution,
> especially if people keep on inventing long wait event names.  I also
> find it not very readable, even in a wide window.  The first idea that
> comes to mind is to split it into multiple tables, one per "Wait Event
> Type", so that we don't need the lefthand column.  Another idea is to
> go over to a format similar to what I've proposed for catalog tables,
> with entries like

> 	Timeout / BaseBackupThrottle
> 	    Descriptive text here ...
> 	Timeout / RecoveryApplyDelay
> 	    Descriptive text here ...

Attached is a draft patch that does it the second way.  This looks
reasonably okay to me, although there's no denying that given a reasonably
wide window, the existing layout requires less vertical space.  But
I'm not sure that matters: I have come to the conclusion, after studying
this table, that nobody has ever yet looked at it.  If they had, we would
surely have gotten gripes about the fact that most of the entries are not
in anything resembling alphabetical order.  How in the world would anyone
look something up in this?  I have not changed the ordering in this patch,
but I think it would be a good idea to fix it to be rigidly alphabetical
(including the "type" part).

BTW, for the purposes of this patch I just abused the
func_table_entry/func_signature role values.  We could invent new ones,
but I'm not sure if it's worthwhile for just one table.

			regards, tom lane