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.
T.
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
>
>
>
>