Prev: [HACKERS] A maze of twisty mailing lists all the same
Next: [HACKERS] Oddly indented raw_expression_tree_walker
From: Jaime Casanova on 8 Apr 2010 01:17 On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Greg Stark <stark(a)mit.edu> wrote: > > Likewise I don't think we should have pgsql-performance or pgsql-sql > or pgsql-novice -- any thread appropriate for any of these would be > better served by sending it to pgsql-general anyways (with the +1 -- Atentamente, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL AsesorÃa y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. +59387171157 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Dave Page on 8 Apr 2010 03:46 On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Greg Stark <stark(a)mit.edu> wrote: > Because the poster chose to send it to pgsql-admin instead of > pgsql-general (or pgsql-bugs) very few of the usual suspects had a > chance to see it. 7 days later a question about a rather serious > database corruption problem had no responses. I've never understand > what the point of pgsql-admin is; just about every question posted is > an "admin" question of some sort. I can't argue with that... but a counter argument is that merging lists would significantly increase the traffic on -general would may not be appreciated by the many people that are only subscribed to one or two of the affected lists. I would wager that the majority of people aren't subscribed to more than a small number of the available lists. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Dave Page on 8 Apr 2010 03:47 On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Dave Page <dpage(a)pgadmin.org> wrote: > I can't argue with that... but a counter argument is ... Yes, I know. Clearly it's coffee time :-p -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Magnus Hagander on 8 Apr 2010 04:02 On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Dave Page <dpage(a)pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Greg Stark <stark(a)mit.edu> wrote: >> Because the poster chose to send it to pgsql-admin instead of >> pgsql-general (or pgsql-bugs) very few of the usual suspects had a >> chance to see it. 7 days later a question about a rather serious >> database corruption problem had no responses. I've never understand >> what the point of pgsql-admin is; just about every question posted is >> an "admin" question of some sort. > > I can't argue with that... but a counter argument is that merging > lists would significantly increase the traffic on -general would may > not be appreciated by the many people that are only subscribed to one > or two of the affected lists. I would wager that the majority of > people aren't subscribed to more than a small number of the available > lists. That's actually something we can easily find out, if we can get a list of the subscribers emails into a Real Database. I know this bunch of database geeks who write strange "ess-cue-ell kweriis", or whatever they call it, to make such analysis... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 8 Apr 2010 06:57 On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:46 AM, Dave Page <dpage(a)pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Greg Stark <stark(a)mit.edu> wrote: >> Because the poster chose to send it to pgsql-admin instead of >> pgsql-general (or pgsql-bugs) very few of the usual suspects had a >> chance to see it. 7 days later a question about a rather serious >> database corruption problem had no responses. I've never understand >> what the point of pgsql-admin is; just about every question posted is >> an "admin" question of some sort. > > I can't argue with that... but a counter argument is that merging > lists would significantly increase the traffic on -general would may > not be appreciated by the many people that are only subscribed to one > or two of the affected lists. I would wager that the majority of > people aren't subscribed to more than a small number of the available > lists. Yeah. I read -performance, -hackers, -bugs, but not -sql, -admin, -general. Consolidating multiple mailing lists to increase viewership of certain messages is only going to work if everyone who now follows each of the smaller mailing lists does an equally good job following the bigger one. That doesn't seem like a safe assumption. I might be able to buy an argument that -admin is too fuzzy to be readily distinguishable, although I don't really know since I don't read it. But -performance seems to have a fairly well-defined charter and it's a subset of messages I enjoy reading. Of course if some performance questions get posted elsewhere, yeah, I'll miss them, but oh well: reading every message on every topic hasn't seemed like a good way to address that problem. ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: [HACKERS] A maze of twisty mailing lists all the same Next: [HACKERS] Oddly indented raw_expression_tree_walker |