On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:58:55AM +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On 23/3/06 20:12, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:00:13PM +0100, Jim Nasby wrote:
> >> On Mar 23, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Oisin Glynn wrote:
> >>> I just discovered that the comments from 8.0 had the answer I was
> >>> looking for but these comments are not in the 8.1 docs. Should the
> >>> comments be rolled forward as new versions are created? Or if valid
> >>> comments added to the docs themselves?
> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/sql-copy.html
> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/sql-copy.html
> >> No, comments don't roll forward.
> > ...and it's unlikely that they will, now or later, without somebody
> > whose whole job is to monitor those comments and make patches.
> > I'd like to make a Modest Proposal???: Let's take down the interactive
> > documents and, in their place, put up a request that doc patches be
> > sent to -docs.
> > What say?
> I say no, because whilst some comments should (and do) end up in the docs,
> many are simply useful real-world code examples and related information that
> people post. It's useful stuff, but would clutter the docs.
But now that stuff gets 'lost' with ever new major version. It'd
probably be better if it was posted somewhere like
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2006-03-29 19:52:01|
|Subject: Re: Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition?|
|Previous:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2006-03-24 08:58:55|
|Subject: Re: COPY command documentation|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-03-24 12:34:53|
|Subject: Re: Parallel sequential scans|
|Previous:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-03-24 12:17:41|
|Subject: Re: Advantages of PostgreSQL over MySQL 5.0|