Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
tm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Woodchuck Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The proponent certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after his little ... Too much information. LOL. Get your mind out of the gutter. ;-) -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
Vern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Marc G. Fournier wrote in Msg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: it can't *hurt* to have the group ... I respectfully disagree with you, Marc. :) The PGSQL* hierarchy is now well distributed, and there is no need for a comp.* group. If anything, the ungated comp.* group will confuse newbies into thinking that that is the best forum for PostGreSQL advice ... instead of the PGSQL.* hierarchy. None of the developers and power users of these lists will be answering questions in the comp.* group, if created, so it would be better to not create the group at all. I still haven't decided which way to vote. I'm lingering in between NO and ABSTAIN. I was originally in favor of a single, non-gated Postgresql newsgroup in the comp* hierarchy. I'm no longer sure if it would be a good thing or not. The proponent certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after his little crossposting stunt - but I will still vote on the *proposal*, and not the *proponent*. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
Marc G. Fournier wrote in Msg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: it can't *hurt* to have the group ... I respectfully disagree with you, Marc. :) The PGSQL* hierarchy is now well distributed, and there is no need for a comp.* group. If anything, the ungated comp.* group will confuse newbies into thinking that that is the best forum for PostGreSQL advice ... instead of the PGSQL.* hierarchy. None of the developers and power users of these lists will be answering questions in the comp.* group, if created, so it would be better to not create the group at all. Vern ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
On Saturday, in article
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert McClenon wrote:
I think that the term that is occasionally used is that the hierarchy
has a hierarchy czar. That is the most straightforward way to manage
a hierarchy. I did not say that it was the best or the worst, only
the most straightforward. It doesn't address the question of what
happens if the czar disappears, for instance.
Seventy-five years' rule by Soviet?
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
On 3 Dec 2004 20:34:36 GMT, Woodchuck Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Harmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 + (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G. Fournier From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one carried by several of the large usenet servers. What are the rules for creating new groups in pgsgl.*? Fiat-only by Marc. ;-) I think that the term that is occasionally used is that the hierarchy has a hierarchy czar. That is the most straightforward way to manage a hierarchy. I did not say that it was the best or the worst, only the most straightforward. It doesn't address the question of what happens if the czar disappears, for instance. - - Bob McClenon ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
David Harmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 + (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G. Fournier From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one carried by several of the large usenet servers. What are the rules for creating new groups in pgsgl.*? Fiat-only by Marc. ;-) -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
Jan Wieck wrote: On 12/3/2004 3:32 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joshua D. Drake) wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuff is not gated in either direction? Yes. If that's the case, there should be a weekly/monthly reminder posting on the comp.* side set up, pointing out that these are not official groups and that real PostgreSQL questions are better asked somewhere else, if the intention is to reach real developers and get real help. I don't want to see people wasting a lot of time or getting confused because they found the wrong newsgroups first. Why would the comp.* group be the wrong group? Just an additional resource. The proponent said that he would post weekly pointers about the pgsql.* hierarchy to the comp.* group, but expecting him to post something negative about the comp.* group is asking too much of him. This group is not meant to be a competing resource..it is just another channel, and another plug for the open-source community. Stop treating it like a bad thing. You are insulting non-developer advanced pgsql.* users that would be using the comp.* group by inferring that only the developers are capable of answering questions. Do the Oracle developers, or MSsql developers participate in the respective comp.* groups for their products? Most probably not. Are those newsgroups extremely useful resources for users of those products? Very much so. I didn't say that only developers are capable of that. Since the mailing list to comp.databases.postgresql.general gating was stopped over a week ago, there has been zero communication on that newsgroup. From what I understand, it is impossible to post to that newsgroup now. In google it says the groups are not archived anymore and the post function is disabled. I never got the comp.databases.postgresql.* groups from my newsprovider so I cannot guess if that is the case with other news providers. But I surmise that it is also true in their case. What I think has happened is that the gateway is sending all posts to that group to pgsql.*. I guess, that currently all of the developers and advanced users are either on the mailing list or using the pgsql.* groups. And since there are no forums at all where you have direct access to Oracle or MSSql developers, this isn't exactly what I call a good example. Would they still be that usefull if like in our case all developers, experienced dba's and advanced users would be on oracle.* or microsoft.* groups already? So how exactly do you think that big number of non-developer advanced PostgreSQL users will populate the comp.* groups? I don't see them there right now, and without them the comp.* groups are the wrong groups because you will not get answers to questions there. Look at this poll. http://scripts.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1SurveyID=36 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
Mike Cox wrote: Jan Wieck wrote: On 12/3/2004 3:32 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joshua D. Drake) wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuff is not gated in either direction? If you want more news servers to carry pgsql.*, consider emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED], and request them to carry pgsql.*. I've already emailed them, and hopefully if we get enough people asking, they will add the groups. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
Marc G. Fournier From: wrote: Mike Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marc G. Fournier From: wrote: The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one carried by several of the large usenet servers. Doesn't private denote a hierarchy in its own domain such as microsoft.*, and gnu.*? If I used an incorrect term, I'll be happy to change it. Not sure what general opinion is here, so hopefully someone else will jump in, but to me 'private' means 'not accessible to the public' ... Hopefully someone like Russ will tell us the correct term for domains like microsoft.* and gnu.*. Those on the mailing lists, or in pgsql.*, visit news.groups to read the RFD and make your opinions and voice heard! It is important to shape it into something that will enhance and benfit users. The charter and the RFD should go through a trial by fire to make it excellent. Give me your criicizm, suggestions,etc. I can handle it! RFDs are generally, by tradition, discussed in news.groups. That way those who are interested can participate without being off-topic in the mailing lists and pgsql.* hierarchies. I'm trying to balance being respectfull of the mailing lists and pgsql.* groups by informing them of what is happening, but also of not filling their lists needlessly with RFD talk. ;-) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
Marc G. Fournier From: wrote: Mike Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.databases.postgresql. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below. CHANGES: The changes from the previous RFD are: 1. The removal of the following groups from the RFD: unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.admin unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.hackers unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.novice unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.sql 2. The proposed comp.databases.postgresql.general group was renamed to comp.databases.postgresql. 3. The charter has been changed to allow discussion of all topics that were in the separate groups. 4. The comp.databases.postgresql.general group will not be gated to any other group or mailing list. 5. The rationale was changed to reflect the removal of the bogus PostgreSQL groups from the comp.databases.* hierarchy. Wern't these these the same changes as were between the 1st and 2nd RFDs? No. The 2nd RFD added 4 groups and the official charters from the postgresql website. To provide a Big Eight newsgroup for users of the PostgreSQL Relational Database Management System. Currently there is a mailing list gated to a private hierarchy. The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one carried by several of the large usenet servers. Doesn't private denote a hierarchy in its own domain such as microsoft.*, and gnu.*? If I used an incorrect term, I'll be happy to change it. *Announcements of new versions of PostgreSQL, PostgreSQL related software, and documentation. *PostgreSQL performance, benchmarking and related topics. *Discussions pertaining to the administration, compilation and installation of PostgreSQL. *Assisting beginners in using the PostgreSQL Relational Database Management system. Help answer basic questions. *SQL related matters including normalization, and theory as it applies to PostgreSQL. *General discussions of PostgreSQL. *PostgreSQL Promotional ideas, etc. *Programming using PostgreSQL. Stored Proceedures, Server-Side functions written in C, PL/pgSQL,PL/Perl, and other languages. *Discussions of PostgreSQL interfaces, including JDBC and ODBC. *Discussions of the Contrib packages. Is there a reason why this is broken down into specific areas of discussion, or is this group *restricted* to just these? If not, are you sure you haven't missed anything? Wouldn't a more general: This group is meant to discuss all aspects of the PostgreSQL RDBMS PostgreSQL development, and bug reports must be discussed in the mailing lists because the devopers are there. The PostgreSQL comp. group does have a well defined, and broad discussion scope. That being said, maybe you missed the line in the charter that reads: *General discussions of PostgreSQL. Many informed individuals from news.groups and private emails from PostgreSQL users told me to include a detailed charter. I followed that advice, using the broad input for what they wanted to see in a PostgreSQL charter. be in line with the purpose of the group? This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, comp.databases, comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc Any reason not to include pgsql.general? Or is that an audience you don't want included in the discussion? Of course not. They should participate because of the wonderful benefits the big 8 comp group will bring to the community. The group will enable usenet PostgreSQL users to participate effectively in PostgreSQL discussions. It will bring greater exposure to the mailing lists as we *will* post a pointer weekly about the existance of the mailing lists and the highly specialized pgsql.* groups. That way users will not wonder why there isn't a postgresql big 8 group. MySQL has an RFD in news.groups, so it will be represented in usenet's big 8. PostgreSQL needs that presence too. There is pent up demand for it. The pgsql.* hierarchy/mailing list is correctly focused on making the mailing list experience wonderful. In the same spirt, the comp.databases.postgresql group will make the usenet experience excellent. Those who prefer Usenet are under-served because the mailing-list/pgsql.* gateway does not provide a seemless usenet experience. Many feel that getting emails in reply to a usenet post does not capture what usenet should be like. The issues of having to wait for their posts to make it to the pgsql.* lists and hierarchy are also a concern. Those interested should visit news.groups and follow the passionate discussions on these issues. There is also the issue of having to ask their news providers to carry the pgsql.* hierarchy. With a big 8 postgreql
