Re: Comment #1946 was rejectd by xzilla
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Comment #1946 was rejectd by xzilla |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1103830353.2377.410.camel@camel обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Comment #1946 was rejectd by xzilla ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Bugs in comment moderation scripts
|
Список | pgsql-www |
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
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: