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

Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?

From: "Dan Langille" <dan(at)langille(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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: 2003-09-03 17:54:01
Message-ID: 3F55F279.28486.43EEB095@localhost (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-hackers
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 :

In response to

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2003-09-03 19:19:23
Subject: Re: Automatic documentation spell check
Previous:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2003-09-03 17:45:53
Subject: Suggested patch to plpgsql docs (7.4beta)

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-09-03 17:58:06
Subject: Re: testing for usable C compiler
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2003-09-03 17:33:45
Subject: Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken?

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