4 Incorporated comments
source | link

Recently I've tried to revive one of my old, interesting and - at least, for me - pretty clear question from closure. After editing the post and casting a reopen vote, unfortunately it seems I've hit a wall.

Vérace initially misunderstood the question, but offered:

Maybe you might want to search for a script to truncate all tables? This would be difficult to write on your own - it has to be done in the correct order - i.e. in grandchildren -> parents -> grandparent order, otherwise the truncates will fail. Not sure about TRIGGERs and PROCEDUREs - but it might be a start. You will, of course, have to reload your entire database. If you can clarify this, I will vote to reopen.

...but offered a reopen vote after another clarification. I made it, but unfortunately it was left unreacted.

The most useful commentcomment arrived from Colin 't Hart.:

Depending on how many objects you have, a complete wipe and reinstall is probably going to be faster and give you a cleaner starting point. If you want to do this more than once, suggest you take a backup of the empty database. A file system copy or tar file taken while the instance is shutdown would be perfect for this sort of thing.

He even answered my question in a comment, demonstrating by his own actions that it is not unclear any more.

  And then, even he clicked "leave closed".

I suspect, maybe some other inherent problem is still there with this question, but somehow it wasn't clearly communicated until now.

But what?

Recently I've tried to revive one of my old, interesting and - at least, for me - pretty clear question from closure. After editing the post and casting a reopen vote, unfortunately it seems I've hit a wall.

Vérace initially misunderstood the question, but offered a reopen vote after another clarification. I made it, but unfortunately it was left unreacted.

The most useful comment arrived from Colin 't Hart. He even answered my question in a comment, demonstrating by his own actions that it is not unclear any more.

  And then, even he clicked "leave closed".

I suspect, maybe some other inherent problem is still there with this question, but somehow it wasn't clearly communicated until now.

But what?

Recently I've tried to revive one of my old, interesting and - at least, for me - pretty clear question from closure. After editing the post and casting a reopen vote, unfortunately it seems I've hit a wall.

Vérace initially misunderstood the question:

Maybe you might want to search for a script to truncate all tables? This would be difficult to write on your own - it has to be done in the correct order - i.e. in grandchildren -> parents -> grandparent order, otherwise the truncates will fail. Not sure about TRIGGERs and PROCEDUREs - but it might be a start. You will, of course, have to reload your entire database. If you can clarify this, I will vote to reopen.

...but offered a reopen vote after another clarification. I made it, but unfortunately it was left unreacted.

The most useful comment arrived from Colin 't Hart:

Depending on how many objects you have, a complete wipe and reinstall is probably going to be faster and give you a cleaner starting point. If you want to do this more than once, suggest you take a backup of the empty database. A file system copy or tar file taken while the instance is shutdown would be perfect for this sort of thing.

He even answered my question in a comment, demonstrating by his own actions that it is not unclear any more. And then, even he clicked "leave closed".

I suspect, maybe some other inherent problem is still there with this question, but somehow it wasn't clearly communicated until now.

But what?

3 deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
source | link

How can be this question still not enoughbe clear enough?

Recently I've tried to revive one of my old, interesting and - at least, for me - pretty clear question from the closure. After editing the post, initiating the and casting a reopen vote, unfortunately it seems I've hit a wall.

Vérace initially misunderstood the question, but offered a reopen vote after another clarification. I made it, but unfortunately it was left unreacted.

The most useful comment arrived from Colin 't Hart. He even answered my question in a comment, demonstrating by his own actions that it is not unclear any more.

And then, even he clicked "leave closed".

I suspect, maybe some other inherent problem is still there with this question, but somehow it wasn't clearly communicated until now.

But what?

How can be this question still not enough clear?

Recently I've tried to revive one of my old, interesting and - at least, for me - pretty clear question from the closure. After editing the post, initiating the reopen vote, unfortunately it seems I've hit a wall.

Vérace initially misunderstood the question, but offered a reopen vote after another clarification. I made it, but unfortunately it was left unreacted.

The most useful comment arrived from Colin 't Hart. He even answered my question in a comment, demonstrating by his own actions that it is not unclear any more.

And then, even he clicked "leave closed".

I suspect, maybe some other inherent problem is still there with this question, but somehow it wasn't clearly communicated until now.

But what?

How can this question still not be clear enough?

Recently I've tried to revive one of my old, interesting and - at least, for me - pretty clear question from closure. After editing the post and casting a reopen vote, unfortunately it seems I've hit a wall.

Vérace initially misunderstood the question, but offered a reopen vote after another clarification. I made it, but unfortunately it was left unreacted.

The most useful comment arrived from Colin 't Hart. He even answered my question in a comment, demonstrating by his own actions that it is not unclear any more.

And then, even he clicked "leave closed".

I suspect, maybe some other inherent problem is still there with this question, but somehow it wasn't clearly communicated until now.

But what?

2 added 294 characters in body
source | link

Recently I've tried to revive one of my old, interesting and - at least, for me - pretty clear question from the closure. After editing the post, initiating the reopen vote, unfortunately it seems I've hit a wall.

Vérace initially misunderstood the question, but offered a reopen vote after another clarification. I made it, but unfortunately it was left unreacted.

The most useful comment arrived from Colin 't Hart. He even answered my question in a comment, demonstrating by his own actions that it is not unclear any more.

And then, even he clicked "leave closed".

I suspect, maybe some other inherent problem is still there with this question, but somehow it wasn't clearly communicated until now.

But what?

Recently I've tried to revive one of my old, interesting and - at least, for me - pretty clear question from the closure. After editing the post, initiating the reopen vote, unfortunately it seems I've hit a wall.

The most useful comment arrived from Colin 't Hart. He even answered my question in a comment, demonstrating by his own actions that it is not unclear any more.

And then, even he clicked "leave closed".

I suspect, maybe some other inherent problem is still there with this question, but somehow it wasn't clearly communicated until now.

But what?

Recently I've tried to revive one of my old, interesting and - at least, for me - pretty clear question from the closure. After editing the post, initiating the reopen vote, unfortunately it seems I've hit a wall.

Vérace initially misunderstood the question, but offered a reopen vote after another clarification. I made it, but unfortunately it was left unreacted.

The most useful comment arrived from Colin 't Hart. He even answered my question in a comment, demonstrating by his own actions that it is not unclear any more.

And then, even he clicked "leave closed".

I suspect, maybe some other inherent problem is still there with this question, but somehow it wasn't clearly communicated until now.

But what?

1
source | link