On 4/26/19 11:48 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 3/25/19 5:33 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 24, 2019 6:50 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 1:20 AM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org
>>> <mailto:jkatz@postgresql.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Some of the pgweb folks have discussed doing that before; it's not
>>> a bad
>>> idea, and perhaps would cut down on some of the headaches.
>>>
>>>
>>> That was in fact the original plan, nobody just got around to building
>>> it. There was even a db field for it in the early dev snapshots, but
>>> it was removed since it was never quite done.
>>>
>>> The general idea was to just have a "last confirmed" timestamp field
>>> on each entry, and just stop showing any entries that have not been
>>> confirmed in <n> days/weeks/months/whatever. We can keep them around
>>> some extra time beyond that in case people come back to update them
>>> later of course.
>>
>> I think it makes sense to remove after a set timeout, if the user hasn't
>> verified in 3 months (or some
>> other sufficiently long period) then the odds that the entry is out of
>> date seems quite high.
>>
>>> Oh, and +1 for doing the same for products.
OK, so I did the scrub for products.
> The scrub took me about 2 hours and change.
Fortunately, products are a bit more straightforward and did not take as
long as services, though it was still at least an hour. So whatever
system we put in place for services, I suggest the same for products
There were 210 products listed at the beginning of the scrub.
- 170 remain
- 40 were removed as they did not exist + no obvious replacement / went
to things I wish I could unsee.
I would say this was more stale than I thought too, but given that there
has not been a product scrub as long as I can remember, it's not as bad
as the staleness of the services.
Regardless, let's work on getting that system into place to help manage
it so scrubs are less gargantuan tasks.
Thanks,
Jonathan
