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

Re: [GENERAL] COPY command documentation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Oisin Glynn <me(at)oisinglynn(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] COPY command documentation
Date: 2006-03-23 22:16:47
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-general
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> On Thursday 23 March 2006 15:12, David Fetter wrote:
>> 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.

> I'd say you're anti-interactive comments :-)

I concur.  People *like* interactive comments, it seems, and we'd not
accomplish much by taking them away except to piss off the users.

What we do need is a better process for improving the docs in response
to what gets posted as interactive comments.  I've tried in the past to
scan the interactive comments and incorporate what seemed worthwhile,
but it's a mighty tedious task.

> The other option would be to mail approved doc comments to this group so that
> someone could work them up into doc patches if applicable.

We could try this for awhile and see if it works.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2006-03-23 22:46:51
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] COPY command documentation
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2006-03-23 21:46:02
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] COPY command documentation

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Steve CrawfordDate: 2006-03-23 22:17:16
Subject: Re: version problem with pg_dump
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2006-03-23 22:00:46
Subject: Re: version problem with pg_dump

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group