Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date
Msg-id 3135.1586822100@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?  ("Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
> On 4/13/20 7:02 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> Perhaps a counterproposal: We eliminate the content in the leftmost
>> "function column, but leave that there to allow the function name /
>> signature to span the full 3 columns. Then the rest of the info goes
>> below. This will also compress the table height down a bit.

> An attempt at a "POC" of what I'm describing (attached image).

Hmm ... what is determining the width of the left-hand column?
It doesn't seem to have any content, since the function entries
are being spanned across the whole table.

I think the main practical problem though is that it wouldn't
work nicely for operators, since the key "name" you'd be looking
for would not be at the left of the signature line.  I suppose we
don't necessarily have to have the same layout for operators as
for functions, but it feels like it'd be jarringly inconsistent.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup, manifests and backends older than ~12