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

From: Woodchuck Bill <bwr607(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: comp.databases.postgresql.* groups and RFD
Date: 2004-11-27 00:01:52
Message-ID: Xns95ADC18932913bswr607h4@130.133.1.4
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Gary L. Burnore <gburnore(at)databasix(dot)com> wrote in
news:co8fbk$70o$3(at)blackhelicopter(dot)databasix(dot)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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-11-27 00:04:26 Re: row-level deadlock problem
Previous Message Gary L.Burnore 2004-11-26 23:49:03 Re: comp.databases.postgresql.* groups and RFD