On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:14:48PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > > The point is that there is a lot of replication information I don't want
> > > to merge into that SGML page so even if we mention "Londiste", the wiki
> > > reference is still useful. I have the same problem with mentioning
> > > pooling in the docs --- there is no natural place to put it, but I can
> > > reference the wiki from the performance SGML docs.
> >
> > well the problem seems to be that we are basically trying to recreate
> > the stuff on the wiki in the main docs in a way that might end up in
> > being outdated all the time.
> > I think that we need to draw a clear line where we do external links
> > (random sites or the wiki) and internal docs. everything that is the
> > core product needs to be in the main docs if we go above that (and that
> > includes all the replication stuff and whatnot) we should just reference
> > an external source (wiki.postgresql.org prefered - fallback to something
> > else) but maintaining just some stuff in our own docs seems just wrong...
>
> Yea, the wiki information is far too bulky to fit into our docs, and
> maintaining it in our docs isn't worthwhile because it is more
> _suggestions_ than critical information.
Perhaps the docs should just say exactly that:
The PostgreSQL community has developed a wide variety of additional software
and made it available for general use. This documentation describes only the
software in the "core" PostgreSQL distribution (comprising the server, a set
of client programs, and the contrib packages), and does not attempt to
document this additional software in any detail. Interested readers are
advised to consult the PostgreSQL wiki at http://wiki.postgresql.org for
further details
ISTM there's a page somewhere on the wiki that tries to be a comprehensive
listing of add-ons, but I can't find it. Maybe that page ought to get special
mention in such documentation.
--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
