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

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwYZLn3+-aBi3HBKywMmjtyiSUZqnwzkJ-aYsZ0ORyS8gA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 11:27 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> writes:

> - I think there should be much more distinctive lines between the different
> functions. As it is the fact that the table is groups of 3 lines doesn’t
> jump out at the eye.

I don't know any easy way to do that.  We do already have the grouping
visible in the first column...

Can we lightly background color every other rowgroup (i.e., "greenbar")?

I don't think having a separate Result column helps.  The additional horizontal whitespace distances all relevant context information (at least on a wide monitor).  Having the example rows mirror the Signature row seems like an easier to consume choice.

e.g., 

enum_first(null::rainbow) → red

date '2001-09-28' + 7 → 2001-10-05

Its also removes the left alignment in a fixed width column which draws unwanted visual attention.

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?