On 2020-Feb-12, Tom Lane wrote:
> With a separate argument-types cell it'd likely be
> better to just leave the cell empty, but do we want to write
> just "→ rettype" in a signature cell?
Yeah, it'd look very odd, and certainly the no-parens case makes it
worse. I like this end result:
> so being consistent with that might suggest including the function name
> in function signatures:
>
> Function Signature
>
> age age(timestamp) → interval
>
> now now() → timestamp with time zone
>
> current_timestamp current_timestamp → timestamp with time zone
>
> I'm a bit suspicious of how much horizontal space that would eat, but
> if we're able to get rid of the separate cell for result type, it
> might work out OK.
Regarding no-parens function signatures, perhaps we can add a footnote
indicating that such functions have this strange shape because of the
SQL committee, such as "† This function signature uses no
parentheses because the SQL standard defines it in that way."
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services