Since many of the special: pages have been disabled for quite a while now,
some people want updates on those info.
I'm wondering if it is okay to run a query to list pages with links to
themselves. On the English Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Database_queries, there is
a sample query to get the list, and it says it takes 24 seconds. On it's
talk page, one person says not to use that query.
Should I not use that?
Also, I am wondering if I can somehow get a list of lonely pages updated.
I'm speaking of Japanese wikipedia, by the way.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
Set yourself up for fun at home! Get tips on home entertainment equipment,
video game reviews, and more here.
> >>>>> "BV" == Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com> writes:
> Me> OK, so, I took my first crack at working on MediaWiki with an
> Me> attempt to check for cookies when logging in (bug #770011).
> BV> Great! I'm in the middle of the SoCal Linux Expo and will look
> BV> this stuff over when I get a chance... If some of the other
> BV> developers could look after this that'd be great.
I might have a quick look now.
>Coolio! The patches I submitted are all independent -- none depends on
>another, that I can see, nor should they conflict -- and made against
>the HEAD for phase3. Some use global variables, so I'm going to wait
>till they're applied (or rejected B-) before trying to jigger with the
>I'm going to try and cut my teeth on the transactions stuff. I
>figure I'll just try to find calls to wfQuery() with INSERT, UPDATE,
>DELETE in them, and wrap something like wfBegin()/wfCommit() around
>them, with wfRollback() for error conditions.
>I'll probably miss 20% of them, and screw everything up. Should be a
Missing 20% is a lot better than missing 100%, which is what we're doing at
the moment. It's really making a mess of our database, we often have to
clean up inconsistencies manually. So everyone will be eternally grateful.
But before you start, I have to make sure you know about the dangers of
transactions. These dangers were discussed by Brion and I on wikitech-l, in
mid-August 2003 under the subject "Using HEAP tables":
Transactions have to be guarded against user aborts. This could be done
either with a "critical section" model, where user aborts are disabled for
the duration of the transaction, or alternatively a shutdown function could
be used. The shutdown function would rollback any active transactions.
However note that installing a shutdown function effectively disables user
aborts anyway. When there is a shutdown function, PHP only checks for
pending user aborts on output -- in our case, once per run.
If a PHP thread dies while a transaction is active, any locked tables will
remain locked indefinitely. The wiki will effectively become read-only until
a developer manually flushes the lock. We've seen this happen on the English
AFAIK, killing threads by restarting the webserver doesn't pose a risk,
because the MySQL connections will also be terminated, releasing any lock.
More information about user aborts is at:
This discussion, and patch submissions, are probably more on-topic at
wikitech-l than at mediawiki-l. This post (and a couple of Brion's) have
been cross-posted there.
-- Tim Starling
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
I've just noticed an oddity on cy.wikipedia.org -- if a logged-in user
goes to the main page, NUMBEROFARTICLES shows that we have (currently)
174 articles, but a non-logged-in user going to the same page is told
that we only have 75 articles !
I suspect that the discrepancy could be because the difference is
represented by "year" or "day month" articles which begin with numbers
-- is this a reasonable suspicion? And does anyone have any idea how it
can be fixed?
On Nov 21, 2003, at 10:55, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> OK, so, I took my first crack at working on MediaWiki with an attempt
> to check for cookies when logging in (bug #770011).
Great! I'm in the middle of the SoCal Linux Expo and will look this
stuff over when I get a chance... If some of the other developers could
look after this that'd be great.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
---Sasha Noyes wrote:
>On Friday 07 November 2003 15:14, Anthere wrote:
>> I do not know if he still has the pb, but he has not
>> contributed since the 25. I think he got desperate :-(
>> Could someone check if he is indeed blocked on fr and
>> en ?
>193.x.x.x is not blocked on either en or fr.
>Chances are that the person has quit wikipedia after being blocked and not
>being successfull in reaching anyone.
Thanks for myself, I'm quite persevering :)
I'm not much connected at home any more, so I only got Anthere
latest answers on my wikipedia talk page this evening.
I've also just seen Brion's answer about the problem I encounter.
At work I access the web through a proxy and firewalls; I don't
know about bots that would spider the wikipedia from my company
(actually this would sound strange to me).
I'm not sure that many people from my company use the wikipedia
and there should be no much ways to track them as we all have
the same IP address outside our network.
The browser I use is Netscape 7.01/Win2kPro ; I've not tried to
launch IE5.5/Win2kPro to see if it works better. I'll try this
back to work on Monday I think. Then I'll drop a word here to
let you know what happened.
It may be useful to have a short note on the server's error pages
to explain people why their request cannot be fulfilled, and some
robot-proof email address to be contacted... :))
Thanks to all for your kind help,
best regards from France,
|-> la copie privée et l'auto-diffusion menacées : http://eucd.info
\ I hate spam. I kill spammers. Non mais.