Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: 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: 2020-04-17T18:38:15Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 8:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Attached are screenshots of the same segment of table 9.10 as before >> and of the initial portion of 9.30, the patch against HEAD to produce >> these, and a hacky patch on the website's main.css to get it to go >> along. Without the last you just get all the subsidiary stuff >> left-justified if you build with STYLE=website, which isn't impossibly >> unreadable but it's not the desired presentation. > These seem very nice, and way more readable than the version with > which you started the thread. Glad you like 'em ;-). Do you have an opinion about what to do with the operator tables --- ie do we need a column with the operator name at the left? regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Doc: re-re-revise markup for tables of functions.
- 4ad047a6eac3 13.0 landed
-
Doc: revise formatting of function/operator tables.
- 737d69ffc3cf 13.0 landed