Received: from ns1.prima.net.id ([202.57.0.8])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA35562;
	Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:25:10 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from chai@prima.net.id)
Received: from prima.net.id (chai@[202.57.0.54]) by ns1.prima.net.id
	(8.8.4/8.7.2) with ESMTP id BAA20392;
	Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:28:58 +0700 (GMT)
Sender: chai@ns1.prima.net.id
Message-ID: <380530CC.165E6D48@prima.net.id>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:24:28 +0700
From: Chairudin Sentosa Harjo <chai@prima.net.id>
Reply-To: chai@prima.net.id
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Stephens <bruce@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
CC: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>,
	PostgreSQL-documentation <docs@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [DOCS] Outline for PostgreSQL book
References: <199910121716.NAA29586@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<87u2nw8c6x.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bruce Stephens wrote:
> 
> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> 
> >                           PostgreSQL Book Proposal
> >
> >                                Bruce Momjian
> 
> [...]
> 
> >    4.
> >           Advanced SQL Commands
> 
> [...]
> 
> >    6.
> >           Interfacing to the POSTGRESQL Database
> >         (a)
> >                C Language API
> >         (b)
> >                Embedded C
> >         (c)
> >                C++
> >         (d)
> >                JAVA
> >         (e)
> >                ODBC
> >         (f)
> >                PERL
> >         (g)
> >                TCL/TK
> >         (h)
> >                PYTHON
> >         (i)
> >                Web access (PHP)
> >         (j)
> >                Server-side programming (PLPGSQL and SPI)
> 
> Isn't (j) logically part of chapter 4?  (Or 5, if it's PostgreSQL
> specific.)  Or am I completely confused?  (Where can I read about
> PLPGSQL and/or SPI, other than in the forthcoming book?)
> 
> If it came to a choice between having very short sections in chapter
> 6, and having two or three of them covered in more depth, I'd go for
> the latter.
> 
> (Of course, you'll inevitably choose two or three which don't match
> what many readers will want (whichever two or three you choose), but
> even so, I think I'd get more out of a reasonably thorough coverage of
> a couple of languages that I won't use than superficial coverage of
> all of them which doesn't really reveal anything useful.)
> 
> ************


I second this opinion.