On Monday 29 December 2003 15:25, Tony wrote:
> By that logic then, we can probably ditch the PG Tutorial altogether and
> provide a quick ref card of PG commands and keywords, with a few pages
> on how PG is different should be plenty.
>
> The bisggest problem that I faced when moving to PG was the complete
> lack of any cetralised information source for this information. Sure
> there are tutorials on the web, first track them down, then convert
> their use to PG then collate them, then make some sense of it all.
> This is the kind of aloofness that I have mentioned previously, just
> because it doesn't belong, doesn't mean it's not needed, and it only
> needs to be written once. Although I know some of the concepts and I'm
> beginning to grock them, I'm still trying to collate enough to satisfy
> my needs.
>
> Assuming yo *do* want to grow the PG community and attract people from
> other systems, the easier the transition for them, the less likely they
> are to look elsewhere for something that appears easier. Easier
> doesn't always mean easier to use, sometimes it can mean easier to get
> to grips with.
*Sigh*.. You just read my first remark which you could have bypassed but
anyways..
What do you think of offer I made? I was slightly disappointed to see that you
missed it..
I am not removing my original message. Please read and let me know what do you
think..
>
> Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> >For one thing, these thing do not belong to postgresql documentation.
> >
> >But I don't believe there is shortage of material on these topics on web
> > and in print.
> >
> >However if you are refering to explaining these things, w.r.t. postgresql,
> > I would be more than happy to churn out some extremely basic tutorials.
> >
> >Can you tell us what all you need? Rephrasing, if you know these(and some
> >other) concpets by now, what all you missed while learning postgresql?
> >
> >It may sound like stupid question but unlearning things out of imagination
> > is not easy...:-)
Shridhar
