Liudmila Mantrova <l.mantrova@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:00 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 23:35 +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
>>> I am a bit uncomfortable about having details about the workings of
>>> binary packages for specific operating systems in the core
>>> documentation.
>>> Maybe I'm too sensitive there, but what about having these parts in
>>> the Wiki and linking there from the tutorial?
>> I also had my doubts about it, but since we are only talking about PGDG
>> packages that the community supports, it's probably OK to have it in
>> docs?
> i'm all for linking to the download page for the exact install commands
> (which I did), but i see no harm in mentioning e.g. install/data
> directories in documentation. It is something I myself went back to when
> working on this tutorial update, so I believe the user will do too. But
> let's hope we'll hear other opinions as well before I go and rework it all.
Traditionally we've stayed away from this on the grounds that we don't
control packaging details and so we wouldn't know when whatever we say
becomes obsolete. Moreover, packaging changes tend not to be quantized
to happen in sync with Postgres releases, so that even if we know
something changed, there'd be a delay to get the word out.
Maybe those arguments can be discounted if the proposal is *only* to
document the PGDG packages, but will such a restricted solution really
satisfy anyone? I'm concerned that novices will not realize that the
presented details don't apply to whatever vendor-supplied Postgres
they are using. This thread already presents a great example in its
confusion over what the default auth method is on Red Hat packages.
>> But if we want to cater for clueless beginners, we cannot omit Windows.
I have to agree with this point ... fortunately, there's probably only
one packaging that's of great interest there, and that's EDB's.
regards, tom lane
