Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: Re: comp.databases.postgresql.* groups and RFD

Re: comp.databases.postgresql.* groups and RFD

From
Woodchuck Bill
Date:
Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns95AD8C1262850bswr607h4@130.133.1.4:

> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in
> news:pIOdndYMRqGJ7DrcRVn- 2w@newedgenetworks.com:
>
>> Are these meant to be worldwide Usenet groups
>> or newsgroups local to your server?
>
> Supernews is already carrying all 29 of the new groups in the pgsql.*
> hierarchy. That alone makes them "worldwide groups", as SN is a major
> peer to other severs.
>

I just realized what a bad name pgsql.* is for a hierarchy. If someone
wants to look for a newgroup for PostgreSQL, he will type that word/string
into his newsreader and it will not bring up any of these newsgroups. I
just tried it on a server that carries the new groups, and the only
newsgroup that comes up when I search for "PostgreSQL" is
alt.comp.databases.postgresql. The name of the hierarchy should have been
postgresql.* instead. Even with the rogue comp.* groups, the word
PostgreSQL appeared in each of the bogus group names.

--
Bill

Re: comp.databases.postgresql.* groups and RFD

From
Gary L.Burnore
Date:
On 26 Nov 2004 22:09:41 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:Xns95AD8C1262850bswr607h4@130.133.1.4:
>
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in
>> news:pIOdndYMRqGJ7DrcRVn- 2w@newedgenetworks.com:
>>
>>> Are these meant to be worldwide Usenet groups
>>> or newsgroups local to your server?
>>
>> Supernews is already carrying all 29 of the new groups in the pgsql.*
>> hierarchy. That alone makes them "worldwide groups", as SN is a major
>> peer to other severs.
>>
>
>I just realized what a bad name pgsql.* is for a hierarchy. If someone
>wants to look for a newgroup for PostgreSQL, he will type that word/string
>into his newsreader and it will not bring up any of these newsgroups.

Newbies would, yeah. but pgsql is a common reference to it.

>I  just tried it on a server that carries the new groups, and the only
>newsgroup that comes up when I search for "PostgreSQL" is
>alt.comp.databases.postgresql. The name of the hierarchy should have been
>postgresql.* instead. Even with the rogue comp.* groups, the word
>PostgreSQL appeared in each of the bogus group names.


--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore                       |  ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
                                      |  ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix                             |  ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
                                      |  ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2  ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division |     Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
      Want one?  GET one!   http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================

Re: comp.databases.postgresql.* groups and RFD

From
Woodchuck Bill
Date:
Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in
news:co8fbk$70o$3@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

>>I just realized what a bad name pgsql.* is for a hierarchy. If someone
>>wants to look for a newgroup for PostgreSQL, he will type that
>>word/string into his newsreader and it will not bring up any of these
>>newsgroups.
>
> Newbies would, yeah. but pgsql is a common reference to it.

Newbies looking for an entry level group might pass novice or general and
find a dead alt.* group as the only newsgroup with "postgresql" in the
name. Something to consider.

--
Bill