On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>> After looking at the generated html version, I find that the "1/param" and
>> "2/param" formula are very simple and pretty easy to read, and they would
>> not be really enhanced with additional spacing.
>> ISTM that adaptative spacing (no spacing for level 1 operations, some for
>> higher level) is a good approach for readability, ie:
>>    f(i) - f(i+1)
>>              ^ no spacing here
>>         ^ some spacing here
>> So I would suggest to keep the submitted version, unless this is a blocker.
> Well, I think with the ".0" version it looks more like floating-point
> math, and I like the extra white-space.  But I'm happy to hear other
> opinions.

-      defined as <literal>(max + min) / 2.0</>, then value <replaceable>i</>
+      defined as <literal>(max+min)/2</>, with
This thing reminds me a bit of the little of TeX I know, when writing
things like "\sqrt{1-e^2}" spaces would be printed in the converted
html, and as that's floating arythmetic, we should have as well a .0.
So I would agree on both points with Robert.

I have looked for now at the first patch and finished with the
attached while looking at it. Perhaps a committer could look already
at that?
I am still looking at the 2nd patch in more details...

Attachment: 0001-Make-pgbench-documentation-more-precise-for-function.patch
Description: binary/octet-stream

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to