Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dan Langille <dan(at)langille(dot)org>,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?
Date: 2003-08-30 21:50:59
Message-ID: 2160.1062280259@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I don't think we "decided" to add it, but no one has objected to the
> idea, except Peter recently.  Does it make sense to have a security
> overview section in the documentation?

I think it does.

As I think Peter is trying to point out, you could almost get the same
result just by having a fat index entry under "security", but I think
people are more likely to notice a chapter or section in the Admin Guide
with such a title.  Also, once we have such a chapter, we might find it
reads more naturally to move some of the existing discussions into it,
leaving only a cross-reference where the material is now.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2003-08-31 09:55:14
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-08-30 17:47:19
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-08-30 22:00:31
Subject: Re: database corruption
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-08-30 21:45:29
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ... TO ... to change related names

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group