List traffic
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: Patch for PKST timezone
Next: [HACKERS] SHARE locks vs. DELETE in SERIALIZABLE mode (Was: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs)
From: Robert Haas on 14 May 2010 10:26 On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Greg Smith <greg(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > The only real argument to keep some more targeted lists is for the benefit > of the people who subscribe to them, not we the faithful, so that they can > have something that isn't a firehose of messages to sort through. Is it > helpful to novices that they can subscribe to a list when they won't be > overwhelmed by traffic, and can ask questions without being too concerned > about being harassed for being newbies? Probably. Are there enough people > interesting in performance topics alone to justify a list targeted just to > them? Certainly; I was only on that list for a long time before joining any > of the others. Are the marketing oriented people subscribed only to > advocacy and maybe announce happy to avoid the rest of the lists? You bet. > > Folding, say, performance or admin into general, one idea that pops up > sometimes, doesn't help those people--now they can only get the > firehose--and it doesn't help me, either. If you can keep up with general, > whether or not the other lists are also included in that or not doesn't > really matter. Ditto for hackers and the things you might try and split out > of it. It's just going to end up with more cross posting, and the only > thing I hate more than a mailbox full of messages is discovering a chunk of > them are dupes because of that. +1. > I might like to see, for example, a user mailing list devoted strictly to > replication/clustering work with PostgreSQL. That's another topic I think > that people are going to want to ask about more in the near future without > getting overwhelmed. But, again, that's for their benefit. I'll have to > subscribe to that, too, and in reality it will probably increase the amount > of messages I read, because people will ask stuff there that's already been > covered on other lists, and vice-versa. Yep. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- 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: "Kevin Grittner" on 14 May 2010 17:09 Greg Stark <gsstark(a)mit.edu> wrote: > If they're interested in performance topics and they're not > subscribed to -general then they're missing *most* of what they're > interested in which doesn't take place on -performance. Well, I for one can't currently suck the end of the fire hose which is -general, and would be less able to do so should other lists be folded into it. So I lurk on -bugs, -performance, -admin, and others -- not to glean information so much as to attempt to respond in areas where I feel I might be able to be helpful and, with a bit of luck, take some of the burden off of those who do the most to help people on these lists. Combining lists will only make it harder for me to attempt to assist in this way. > And most of what's on -performance ends up being non-performance > related questions anyways. I don't believe you. Scanning this: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-05/index.php I see a few non-performance questions, but they're clearly a small fraction of the traffic. > I think what I'm getting at is that we shouldn't have any lists > for traffic which could reasonably happen on -general. I think that's exactly backwards -- we shouldn't have any traffic on -general for issues which could reasonably happen in another list. You can always configure your email to combine lists into a common folder upon receipt. -Kevin -- 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: Rob Wultsch on 15 May 2010 02:50 > Linux has *as many if not more* ... MySQL, if memory servers, has a half > dozen or more ... etc ... MySQL has a bunch of lists, none of which get much traffic. Honestly, they should probably be combined. -- Rob Wultsch -- 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: Rob Wultsch on 15 May 2010 09:37 On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Rob Wultsch <wultsch(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Linux has *as many if not more* ... MySQL, if memory servers, has a half >> dozen or more ... etc ... > > MySQL has a bunch of lists, none of which get much traffic. Honestly, > they should probably be combined. > > -- > Rob Wultsch "They" was referring to the various low traffic MySQL lists which in my opinion does not work. As far as Linux, when I briefly subscribed to the kernel mailing list there was such a volume of traffic that it was difficult to manage as a noob. I do not have an opinion about PG. I think that those two examples could be seen as how not to run email lists effectively. -- Rob Wultsch wultsch(a)gmail.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: Greg Stark on 27 May 2010 11:38
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy(a)hub.org> wrote: >> most people are not prepared to understand the concept of more than >> one list for project... > > Apparently you don't use very many large projects ... FreeBSD has 20+ lists, > dedicated to various aspects of both end user and developer ... I imagine > Linux has *as many if not more* ... MySQL, if memory servers, has a half > dozen or more ... etc ... Sure, if we have distinctions which make sense then having separate lists makes sense. Linux has separate lists for different drivers, different parts of the kernel, projects to improve the kernel in various specific ways (latency, etc). I'm all for having a list dedicated to infrastructure (oddly named -www here) and a list dedicated to printing flyers and arranging conferences (-advocacy) since those topics are usually well defined. Lists like -ecpg or -odbc would work fine if the traffic warranted them. But some of the lists we have now are 99% overlap with each other -- I claim because the definitions are meaningless. What part of postgres discussion (aside from this thread) *don't* relate in some way to SQL? Or administration? Or performance? Most performance problems end up being solved by adjusting SQL or changing GUCs. Mot administration questions are originally posed as general help questions. If you're subscribed to these lists you get a random, fairly small, subset of discussion related these topics. Perhaps what I'm looking for is a more sensible division that allows most of the traffic related to the subtopics to actually go there. It would have to be a division so clearcut that anyone who doesn't follow could reasonably be blamed for not following etiquette. That's simply not true with the current divisions. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |