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: 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: 2020-04-17T20:22:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 3:58 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> On the other point of dispute about the operator tables: for the
>> moment I'm leaning towards keeping the text descriptions.

> I mostly suggested nuking them just to try to make the table more
> readable. But since you've found another (and better) solution to that
> problem, I withdraw that suggestion.

Cool, then we're all on the same page.  I shall press forward.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

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

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