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
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2003-08-31 09:55:14|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc? |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-08-30 17:47:19|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-08-30 22:00:31|
|Subject: Re: database corruption |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-08-30 21:45:29|
|Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ... TO ... to change related names |