Re: 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

From: "Vern" <vtster(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
Date: 2005-03-17 02:35:25
Message-ID: dztyopvctgd@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Marc G. Fournier wrote in Msg <coono0$p91$1(at)news(dot)hub(dot)org>:

> it can't *hurt* to have the group ...

I respectfully disagree with you, Marc. :)

The PGSQL* hierarchy is now well distributed, and there is no need for
a comp.* group. If anything, the ungated comp.* group will confuse
newbies into thinking that that is the best forum for PostGreSQL advice
... instead of the PGSQL.* hierarchy. None of the developers and power
users of these lists will be answering questions in the comp.* group,
if created, so it would be better to not create the group at all.

Vern

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Fuhr 2005-03-17 03:48:16 Re: help with plpgsql function called by trigger
Previous Message Vern 2005-03-17 01:52:11 New PostGreSQL Newsgroup - VOTE TO BEGIN