In article <spampit-3A2F1E.20451409112004 (AT) host170 (DOT) octanews.net>,
Klaas <spampit (AT) klaas (DOT) ca> wrote:
The whole point of this proposal is that c.d.p.general *already* exists in
an unofficial sense on some servers, and that it should be made
"official." Creating a new group with a different name will simply
confuse matters on those servers that already carry c.d.p.general.

--
Jon Bell <jtbellm4h (AT) presby (DOT) edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA

BTW, in Outlook Express if you are posting to the news.postgresql.org server
it will not send a message to news.groups. So this message will not get
there unless someone puts it there.

If 4 are official and 16 are unofficial, why would that bother you?
You can still access all of them the same way you do today. 4 of them would
be accessible by more people and if they posted on the wrong group they can
easily be let know which group is appropriate. For example, I posted a bug
on the PGAdmin list, and they told me that it was a plpython bug and I
should post it to the .bugs list.
As for Mike being an " unknown interloper", since when did an open source
forum become proprietary? He is probably a regular reader who is not a
regular poster. He belongs to the postgresql community. Some people
contribute by programming, other people contribute by documentation and he
chose to contribute by helping to propogate the newsgroups. I think that is
a worthy task and he should be thanked for doing this. Everyone always talks
about how much work the core team has to do and I think that any task that
someone else can contribute is a good thing.

What if he recommended a new feature for the database would you say that he
is an interloper and has no right to help determine the feature set? If you
disagree with the proposal then discuss it in a calm fashion without name
calling. If you think it should be better then help fix it. Don't stand on
the sidelines yelling "hey batter batter..."


<pvaurio (AT) solaris (DOT) polarhome.com> wrote

jtbellj3p (AT) presby (DOT) edu (Jon Bell) wrote:

While that is true, I think part of the point is also to create a
postgresql big8 newsgroup.

I don't think that is an insurmountable problem if it were actually
desirable that the name be changed. Most of the participants on on the
list, and thus would be unaffected. The rest use servers that have low
or automatic standards for group creation, so it wouldn't be too
difficult to point people to the new group on those servers.

Since people like the current name, though, it is clearly not worth the
potential confusion <g>.

-Mike

Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:2vcp1nF2k0ftbU1@uni-
berlin.de:

I agree

What about
comp.databases.postgresql.novice

I think that group could be of general interest and it has a fair amount of
traffic.

--
Rolf Østvik

pvaurio (AT) solaris (DOT) polarhome.com wrote:

????


--
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me

On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 16:37 -0800, Mike Cox wrote:
pgsql-performance gets a lot of posts and is probably relevant to nearly
all users.

--
Oliver Elphick olly (AT) lfix (DOT) co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA
========================================
"But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ."
I Corinthians 15:57


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo (AT) postgresql (DOT) org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

pvaurio (AT) solaris (DOT) polarhome.com wrote:

Good. With any luck, Marc will block you from the mailing
lists for spamming those lists.

At 11:54 AM 11/14/2004, you wrote:
This is true. All the mailing lists that gate to USENet should either be
legitimized or removed.


---------------------------(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

At 01:54 AM 11/14/2004, Sim Zacks wrote:
Because the groups already exist on many servers. Make them all legit and
gate them all. Problem solved.




---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

That would be the perfect solution for us, but apparantly not for the rest
of the world.
Since they are offering us 4 and saying we can apply for the other 16 in 6
months, I would take that and not try to take an all or nothing attitude.
More of a work with the newsgroup people then against them attitude.

Personally, I will be very happy if we get approved. I switched to the
newsgroup from the maillist as soon as I found out about it, and my news
server doesn't carry this list so I have to access it through
news.postgresql.org



""Gary L. Burnore"" <gburnore (AT) databasix (DOT) com> wrote