Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?

After further fooling with this issue, I've determined that

(1) I need to be able to use <programlisting> environments within the
func_table_entry cells and have them render more-or-less normally.
There doesn't seem to be any other good way to render multiline
example results for set-returning functions ... but marking such
environments up to the extent that the website style normally does
is very distracting.

(2) I found that adding !important to the func_table_entry rules
is enough to override less-general !important rules.  So it'd be
possible to leave all the existing CSS rules alone, if that makes
you feel more comfortable.

The attached updated patch reflects both of these conclusions.
We could take out some of the !important annotations here if
you're willing to delete !important annotations in more-global
rules for <p> and/or <pre>, but maybe that's something to fool
with later.  I'd like to get this done sooner ...

            regards, tom lane

--- main.css.orig    2020-04-29 17:19:24.089511785 -0400
+++ main.css    2020-04-29 19:18:28.082138095 -0400
@@ -799,6 +799,27 @@
     text-align: left;
 }
 
+#docContent table.table th.func_table_entry p,
+#docContent table.table td.func_table_entry p {
+    margin-top: 0.1em;
+    margin-bottom: 0.1em !important;
+    padding-left: 4em;
+    text-align: left;
+}
+
+#docContent table.table p.func_signature {
+    text-indent: -3.5em;
+}
+
+#docContent table.table td.func_table_entry pre.programlisting {
+    margin-top: 0.1em !important;
+    margin-bottom: 0.1em !important;
+    padding: 0 !important;
+    padding-left: 4em !important;
+    background-color: inherit !important;
+    border: 0;
+}
+
 /**
  * Titles, Navigation
  */