Re: RFC: Security documentation

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: "Alex J(dot) Avriette" <alex(at)posixnap(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RFC: Security documentation
Date: 2004-02-08 12:02:30
Message-ID: 200402081302.30639.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alex J. Avriette wrote:
> That having been said, I would have submitted a patch with said
> documentation if I knew where to start. I have submitted this RFC --
> a request for comments, nothing more serious than that -- because I'd
> like to know what we can do to get some documentation included in the
> next release. I don't feel that having zero documentation on this
> subject is acceptable.

I don't think that such information, while certainly worthwhile, belongs
into the PostgreSQL documentation, especially because it would cover
things that are not even included in PostgreSQL, such as DBD::Pg or PHP
or some mysterious generic "applications". But in any case it's more
important to actually write something than worry about where or how it
will be published.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2004-02-08 17:14:36 Re: Kerberos as source of user name? (Re: [BUGS] segfault in psql on x86_64)
Previous Message Nigel J. Andrews 2004-02-08 10:52:07 Re: RFC: Security documentation