Re: Subject: Re: [GENERAL] A book for PgSQL? A need? yes? no?

On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, dustin sallings wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Stephan Doliov wrote:
> > So, are we serious about this? Should we start up a list for
> > details?
> Like, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org :) How much of what is already
> done by the Docs Team pertinent to all this, and, if not, why not? If our
> existing manuals don't make good documentation, then why not, and
> shouldn't those be fixed too?

Until web browsers are available on some device which folds in half like a
book and can be taken into places like bathtubs and beds and couces
without losing one's connection, books will have an enormous value.

The efforts of the docs teams has been tremendous and valuable beyond
description. The existing docs are the right place to start. It's
certainly worth it however to expand some sections, create new ones, and
edit existing ones. From my point of view, the docs give one most all the
information one needs to work postgres/have postgres work for one, but
they are not to the point yet where spending several days with them makes
one feel comfortable using the postgres system. It's kind of like a user
interface issue. The docs aren't super friendly yet.

as always,
just my $0.02
steve doliov