Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f83LKj725691 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:20:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f83LKgK06458; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:20:42 -0400 (EDT) To: Peter Eisentraut cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Listing SQL books in the documentation In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Sun, 02 Sep 2001 19:02:27 +0200" Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 17:20:41 -0400 Message-ID: <6455.999552041@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200109/6 X-Sequence-Number: 938 Peter Eisentraut writes: > The documentation set contains several references to commercial books > about databases and/or SQL for "more information". Most of these are > rather old by today's standards (93-97), so I think we should do something > about that. Possibilities: > a) Update the list with our favourites of the day > b) Sell advertisement spots for the documentation ;-) > c) Not list any commerical books in the documentation at all > Personally, I'm leaning towards (c) because I feel the documentation > should not be biased in that way, and it makes it look less like "we're > too lazy to document this, please read a book". I agree with (c) as far as the "official" (SGML) documentation goes. I do think we should have a page on the website mentioning good books, but let's keep it separate from the documentation proper. > Untouched by any of this would of course be references to relevant > academic works and specific references to any kind of text to support > implementation choices, etc. Check. regards, tom lane