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: "Marc G. Fournier" on 27 May 2010 11:52 On Thu, 27 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote: > 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) Actually, infrastructure is appropriately discussed on -sysadmins ... web is on -www ... tends to be a bit of overlap since -sysadmins was added later, and prior to that we did discuss on -www ... > since those topics are usually well defined. Lists like -ecpg or -odbc > would work fine if the traffic warranted them. I don't agree with the comment about 'if traffic warranted them' though .... the fact that there is very little traffic should be what makes them attractive / useful ... you don't have to weed through alot of posts to find the odbc/ecpg related ones ... > 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. how about something -sql vs -tuning ... ? -tuning replacing -performance, which I do agree could be sql *or* server ... where -tuning would be more obviously server related ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy(a)hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy(a)hub.org -- 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: Tom Lane on 27 May 2010 16:08 Josh Berkus <josh(a)agliodbs.com> writes: > On 5/27/10 8:38 AM, Greg Stark wrote: >> 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. > Only someone who is a postgresql developer would consider 15-30 > posts/day "small". For most of our user base, the level of traffic on > -performance, -sql, and -general is already too high and many people > don't subscribe to these lists because it is too high. I get complaints > -- and people personal-sending me questions because they don't want to > subscribe -- all the time. > Having fewer posts on any particular list is *desireable*. It's a good > thing. It's *only* a problem when a bug report or user question goes > unanswered because the list is unattended. And so far, I've only seen > one report of that. Well, there's no free lunch. If we have a whole lot of "small" lists there are going to be two big downsides: fewer people reading each list (hence fewer answers), and many more arguably-misclassified postings, thus diluting the theoretical targetedness of the lists. If you want good answers to questions you need to post them in a forum where there are enough people to ensure someone will know the answer (and have the time/interest to respond). People who want answers and don't want to have to read other discussions should consider obtaining commercial support. regards, tom lane -- 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: alvherre on 27 May 2010 15:29 Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of jue may 27 14:11:51 -0400 2010: > Only someone who is a postgresql developer would consider 15-30 > posts/day "small". For most of our user base, the level of traffic on > -performance, -sql, and -general is already too high and many people > don't subscribe to these lists because it is too high. I get complaints > -- and people personal-sending me questions because they don't want to > subscribe -- all the time. People can post without being subscribed, and most people around here will CC them when they reply. That's supposed to be a feature of our lists. Maybe when you receive such a question you can forward it to a list CCing the person. Not that I disagree with your opinion that a smaller list is desirable. I think collapsing lists into -general or whatever would be a terrible idea. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(a)commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- 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: Josh Berkus on 27 May 2010 14:11 On 5/27/10 8:38 AM, Greg Stark wrote: > Lists like -ecpg or -odbc > would work fine if the traffic warranted them. A low-traffic list is a feature, not a bug. Most people don't *like* subscribing to lists which have 80posts/day. > 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. This is a set theory fallacy. While most performance issues are administration issues as well, it is NOT therefore true that most administration issues are also performance issues. In fact, I'd say that the -performance list does an excellent job of sticking to troubleshooting performance issues only. And for someone who has a performance issue, and does not want to field 100 emails about "can't install Postgre", that's a feature. > 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. Only someone who is a postgresql developer would consider 15-30 posts/day "small". For most of our user base, the level of traffic on -performance, -sql, and -general is already too high and many people don't subscribe to these lists because it is too high. I get complaints -- and people personal-sending me questions because they don't want to subscribe -- all the time. Having fewer posts on any particular list is *desireable*. It's a good thing. It's *only* a problem when a bug report or user question goes unanswered because the list is unattended. And so far, I've only seen one report of that. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.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: Josh Berkus on 28 May 2010 16:44
On 5/27/10 5:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <josh(a)agliodbs.com> writes: >> We do not have a problem. The lists are fine the way they are. > > +1 ... wasn't the point I thought you were trying to make, but I'm > good with not changing things. Yeah, that's because I was responding to the suggestion that 5 of our lists should be collapsed into 'general' as the One Uber-List. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.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 |