Re: Comment #1946 was rejectd by xzilla

Author: XYZ <XYZ(at)X(dot)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(at)X(dot)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(at)postgresql(dot)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(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL

On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 13:50, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> nobody wrote:
>
> >Author: XYZ <XYZ(at)X(dot)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(at)deefs(dot)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(at)deefs(dot)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