From: "Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 13:54:01 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc? 
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Message-ID: <3F55F279.28486.43EEB095@localhost>
References: <200308301747.h7UHlJU18908@candle.pha.pa.us> 
In-reply-to: <2160.1062280259@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body

On 30 Aug 2003 at 17:50, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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 : http://www.langille.org/