X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35249DC941
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:21:52 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 12451-08
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:21:55 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com
	[63.87.162.25]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A896D9DC889
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:21:50 -0400 (AST)
Received: from 10.10.1.37 ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com
	([10.10.1.2]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ;
	Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:21:50 +0000
Received: from state.g2switchworks.com by mail.g2switchworks.com;
	20 Mar 2006 17:21:50 -0600
Subject: Re: Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition?
From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo@sitening.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <8773.1142896355@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <42D1F5FC-42DD-49D8-8509-0D68C5B9384C@sitening.com>
	<8558.1142894925@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<2DD8310C-92A3-495D-8AA5-499E6E43B28C@sitening.com>
	<8773.1142896355@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1142896910.17883.168.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) 
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:21:50 -0600
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.145 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144,
	UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
X-Spam-Score: 0.145
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200603/25
X-Sequence-Number: 3482

On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 17:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo@sitening.com> writes:
> > What about the larger suggested change of breaking that section into  
> > three more granular subsections? I could see commentary being  
> > slightly more helpful for each.
> 
> No particular opinion from here.
> 
> Someone (was it Scott Marlowe?)  recently volunteered to draft a
> complete restructuring of the admin docs --- so it would probably be
> better to think about this as part of that effort rather than a
> standalone change.

That was me, and I'm working on it right now, in the background.

If anyone has any input, I'd be glad to hear it.  I'm still getting
docbooks setup on my laptop and such...