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: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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: 2020-04-30T03:26:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
> Clearly I was caught doing a single browser test (Chrome).

Well, I've not tested anything but Safari, either ...

> Reverted back to the verbose way sans !important, attached, which
> appears to be the consensus. If you can ACK this, I'll commit.

This one works for me.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

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

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