From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200308301747.h7UHlJU18908@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?
In-Reply-To: <3F5091EE.14330.2EED9222@localhost>
To: Dan Langille <dan@langille.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:47:19 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Dan Langille wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2003 at 17:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> > Dan Langille writes:
> > 
> > > It has already been decided that we need something.
> > 
> > Please point me to where this has been decided.
> 
> I'm sure you can google as well I can can.  The original message in 
> this thread referred to "PostgreSQL Password Cracker" posted on 2003-
> 01-02.  You could also search for the subject of this message.  When 
> you find those you'll see that such a section was suggested.  I took 
> up the task, suggested some content.  Then it lingered and was 
> brought up again recently.  Your objections are the first.
> 
> I can't see why you, or anyone for that matter, can possibly object 
> to a section titled security which points to the relevent components 
> and parts within the documentation. As previously stated, what I have 
> posted is a starting point.
> 
> You aren't being asked to do the work.  Why do you care if someone 
> else does it?  You may not need such documentation, but it will be 
> useful to many.

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?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073