Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > But it is a "sect1" in libpq.  It should be a "sect1" somewhere that
> > makes more sense.
> > ...
> > It doesn't belong in libpq, and it doesn't belong in the Programmer's
> > Guide.
> 
> How could it not belong in libpq?  But you are right that the
> Programmer's Guide seems the wrong place for information that
> is important to end-users.

Some people don't even know libpq exists.  If someone uses only
psql, how would they know?

> Perhaps libpq needs to have a chapter in the User's Guide as
> well as a chapter in the Programmer's Guide?

> Or maybe we could put the relevant information into a reference
> page under PostgreSQL Client Applications (titled something
> along the line of "common behavior of all libpq-based client
> applications").

Yep, that's what I would do.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

• Re: PostgreSQL Password Cracker at 2003-01-04 01:08:03 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2003-01-04 01:34:02
	Subject: Re: Threads
Previous:	From: Lamar Owen	Date: 2003-01-04 01:32:15
	Subject: Re: Upgrading rant.