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