On 30 Aug 2003 at 17:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
So do we want this work or not?
Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2003-09-03 19:19:23|
|Subject: Re: Automatic documentation spell check|
|Previous:||From: Richard Huxton||Date: 2003-09-03 17:45:53|
|Subject: Suggested patch to plpgsql docs (7.4beta)|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-09-03 17:58:06|
|Subject: Re: testing for usable C compiler |
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2003-09-03 17:33:45|
|Subject: Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken?|