Thread: Listing SQL books in the documentation
The documentation set contains several references to commercial books about databases and/or SQL for "more information". Most of these are rather old by today's standards (93-97), so I think we should do something about that. Possibilities: a) Update the list with our favourites of the day b) Sell advertisement spots for the documentation ;-) c) Not list any commerical books in the documentation at all Personally, I'm leaning towards (c) because I feel the documentation should not be biased in that way, and it makes it look less like "we're too lazy to document this, please read a book". Untouched by any of this would of course be references to relevant academic works and specific references to any kind of text to support implementation choices, etc. Comments? -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> The documentation set contains several references to commercial books
> about databases and/or SQL for "more information". Most of these are
> rather old by today's standards (93-97), so I think we should do something
> about that. Possibilities:
> a) Update the list with our favourites of the day
> b) Sell advertisement spots for the documentation ;-)
> c) Not list any commerical books in the documentation at all
> Personally, I'm leaning towards (c) because I feel the documentation
> should not be biased in that way, and it makes it look less like "we're
> too lazy to document this, please read a book".
I agree with (c) as far as the "official" (SGML) documentation goes.
I do think we should have a page on the website mentioning good books,
but let's keep it separate from the documentation proper.
> Untouched by any of this would of course be references to relevant
> academic works and specific references to any kind of text to support
> implementation choices, etc.
Check.
regards, tom lane
> Comments?
One reason, perhaps the most important, we mentioned books at all was to
get a common set of reference material for the developers. Also, I've
found some books to be better "references" than others, though this
doesn't necessarily argue for their inclusion in a "suggested list" in
the main docs.
As Mr. Lane points out, we should have the info somewhere. OK with me if
we want to move it to the web site...
btw, the references are old, but has anyone run across a *good* new book
covering SQL99 explicitly? It may be that a 5 year accumulation of books
after SQL92 was published is sufficient to do the topic justice, and
newer books covering the same standard do not cover any new ground.
- Thomas
> The documentation set contains several references to commercial books > about databases and/or SQL for "more information". Most of these are > rather old by today's standards (93-97), so I think we should do something > about that. Possibilities: > > a) Update the list with our favourites of the day > > b) Sell advertisement spots for the documentation ;-) > > c) Not list any commerical books in the documentation at all > > Personally, I'm leaning towards (c) because I feel the documentation > should not be biased in that way, and it makes it look less like "we're > too lazy to document this, please read a book". > > Untouched by any of this would of course be references to relevant > academic works and specific references to any kind of text to support > implementation choices, etc. FYI, the FAQ mentions books too. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026