Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The documentation set contains several references to commercial books
> about databases and/or SQL for "more information". Most of these are
> rather old by today's standards (93-97), so I think we should do something
> about that. Possibilities:
> a) Update the list with our favourites of the day
> b) Sell advertisement spots for the documentation ;-)
> c) Not list any commerical books in the documentation at all
> Personally, I'm leaning towards (c) because I feel the documentation
> should not be biased in that way, and it makes it look less like "we're
> too lazy to document this, please read a book".
I agree with (c) as far as the "official" (SGML) documentation goes.
I do think we should have a page on the website mentioning good books,
but let's keep it separate from the documentation proper.
> Untouched by any of this would of course be references to relevant
> academic works and specific references to any kind of text to support
> implementation choices, etc.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-09-03 23:17:10|
|Subject: Re: Commit docbook2man? |
|Previous:||From: Joaquim Quinteiro Uchoa||Date: 2001-09-03 20:35:11|
|Subject: Re: Cryptography - A dummy question|