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: 2020-04-17T23:04:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> I feel like writing them as:
> + (date, integer) -> date
> makes more sense as they are mainly sorted on the operator symbol as
> opposed to the left operand.

Hmm ... we do use that syntax in some fairly-obscure places like
ALTER OPERATOR, but I'm afraid that novice users would just be
completely befuddled.  Maybe the examples would be enough to clarify,
but I'm not convinced.  Especially not for unary operators, where
ALTER OPERATOR would have us write "- (NONE, integer)".

			regards, tom lane

Commits

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

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