Thread: Comment #1946 was rejectd by xzilla
Author: XYZ <XYZ@X.XOM> Page: 7.4/datatype.html ---- Will Numeric(1000,2) take the maximum disk space needed to store 1000 digits? Or will it take only as much as needed to store the current number? Why isn't there a way to make a NUMERIC(scale) i.e. NUMERIC(2) that have 2 places after the point, but can be of any size?
nobody wrote: >Author: XYZ <XYZ@X.XOM> >Page: 7.4/datatype.html >---- >Will Numeric(1000,2) take the maximum disk space needed to store >1000 digits? Or will it take only as much as needed to store the >current number? > >Why isn't there a way to make a NUMERIC(scale) i.e. NUMERIC(2) that >have 2 places after the point, but can be of any size? > > I am starting to think that more and more people are going to use the web comments as forums. Perhaps we should consider not allow comments at this time? J >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 13:50, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> nobody wrote:
>
> >Author: XYZ <XYZ@X.XOM>
> >Page: 7.4/datatype.html
> >----
> >Will Numeric(1000,2) take the maximum disk space needed to store
> >1000 digits? Or will it take only as much as needed to store the
> >current number?
> >
> >Why isn't there a way to make a NUMERIC(scale) i.e. NUMERIC(2) that
> >have 2 places after the point, but can be of any size?
> >
> >
> I am starting to think that more and more people are going
> to use the web comments as forums. Perhaps we should consider
> not allow comments at this time?
>
People have always done that (and worse, the comment you reported
yesterday was from last october), the bonus is that now we have a way to
keep the comments a little filtered.
I will say thought that the admin script are a little buggy... when I
rejected this comment, I thought I would be taken to a web page to allow
me to explain why the comment was going to be rejected, but after
authenticating i was given some redirect which require authenticating
again which brought me to a "it's been rejected" screen... ie. i never
got a chance to explain why I rejected it (was going to tell the person
to point to the mailing list).
On another one, I clicked the edit screen and instead of getting a box
to edit the content, I just got a search box to look for comments.
I think both of these things need to be fixed, but otherwise I still
think this is an improvement over what we had, and that we might want to
take some time to clean up the old entries.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thursday 23 December 2004 17:25, Justin Clift wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > On another one, I clicked the edit screen and instead of getting a box
> > to edit the content, I just got a search box to look for comments.
>
> I think this means the comment no longer exists. For example, if one of
> us has already come along and deleted the comment.
>
Hmm... I don't think so since I never saw a deletion notice sent for that
comment. Also, I'd have expected to get the "comment not found/deleted"
screen in those cases.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Robert Treat wrote: > I will say thought that the admin script are a little buggy... when I > rejected this comment, I thought I would be taken to a web page to allow > me to explain why the comment was going to be rejected, but after > authenticating i was given some redirect which require authenticating > again which brought me to a "it's been rejected" screen... ie. i never > got a chance to explain why I rejected it (was going to tell the person > to point to the mailing list). Looking at what's in CVS, it looks like there's a step missing. When you reject a comment, it puts together an E-Mail to the person who submitted it saying "Your comment was rejected from PostgreSQL manual" with the body "Insert a semi-friendly explanation here \n The original comment follows". Unfortunately, it sends that right away without allowing you to edit it, as far as I can tell (my language of choice is Perl, not PHP, so I might be missing something, but it looks clear enough). I think we need another QuickForm for editing the comment, which may be best put in a different file than comments.php. > On another one, I clicked the edit screen and instead of getting a box > to edit the content, I just got a search box to look for comments. That *should* only happen if you went to the comment-edit.php page without an "?id=___" somehow... It doesn't look like this happens in any of the links (either in the E-Mail or on the form), though. Steve -- Steve Simms <steve@deefs.net> http://www.deefs.net
Hi, Steve Simms wrote: > Looking at what's in CVS, it looks like there's a step missing. When you > reject a comment, it puts together an E-Mail to the person who submitted it > saying "Your comment was rejected from PostgreSQL manual" with the body > "Insert a semi-friendly explanation here \n The original comment follows". No, there's no step missing, I expected someone to put a "canned" answer in this place. I don't think it's worth the effort to write an explanation for every spam piece added via our comment interface. The better approach would be to add a prominent warning to comment form and send a "you violated our comment guidelines"-type email on comment rejection.
Alexey Borzov wrote: > No, there's no step missing, I expected someone to put a "canned" answer > in this place. Ok, that makes sense. > I don't think it's worth the effort to write an explanation for every > spam piece added via our comment interface. The better approach would be > to add a prominent warning to comment form and send a "you violated our > comment guidelines"-type email on comment rejection. Well, we do have the delete/reject distinction, where delete just removes the message without sending an E-Mail, and reject provides an explanation. Is it worth making that message customizable, given that? Steve -- Steve Simms <steve@deefs.net> http://www.deefs.net
On Friday 24 December 2004 11:42, Steve Simms wrote:
> Alexey Borzov wrote:
> > No, there's no step missing, I expected someone to put a "canned" answer
> > in this place.
>
> Ok, that makes sense.
>
> > I don't think it's worth the effort to write an explanation for every
> > spam piece added via our comment interface. The better approach would be
> > to add a prominent warning to comment form and send a "you violated our
> > comment guidelines"-type email on comment rejection.
>
> Well, we do have the delete/reject distinction, where delete just
> removes the message without sending an E-Mail, and reject provides an
> explanation.
>
> Is it worth making that message customizable, given that?
>
Probably not. I think we need to change the "friendly message" to state the
reasons why someones comment would be rejected and leave it at that. If
someone is really compelled to give a reason you can direct email the person
in question. This would mean we "reject" comments for folks who are
misguided, but "delete" messages that are totally inappropriate.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL