Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
All, Several of us hashed this out at the Code Sprint. While the solution we arrived at doesn't completely satisfy Greg, several others would be fine with just having a version of pgsql-patches (pgsql-patches-lite?) that we could subscribe to to get the messages without the attachments. Also, Greg pointed out the need to post periodic summaries of what features/patches had been committed. So I guess I'll have to start doing that for PWN. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-12 kell 23:04, kirjutas Marc G. Fournier: On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote: There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on a website, replacing it with a link in the email. Is majordomo one of them? Majordomo2 has a 'hook' for it, but, like most OSS software, nobody has had the requirement to actually code it ... any perl experts here interested in doing it? Does it have to be perl ? I can do it in python in an hour or two. Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match -- Hannu Krosing Database Architect Skype Technologies OÜ Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia Skype me: callto:hkrosing Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Hannu Krosing wrote: Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-12 kell 23:04, kirjutas Marc G. Fournier: On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote: There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on a website, replacing it with a link in the email. Is majordomo one of them? Majordomo2 has a 'hook' for it, but, like most OSS software, nobody has had the requirement to actually code it ... any perl experts here interested in doing it? Does it have to be perl ? To tie into the list manager, it has to be perl, yes ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote: There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on a website, replacing it with a link in the email. Is majordomo one of them? Majordomo2 has a 'hook' for it, but, like most OSS software, nobody has had the requirement to actually code it ... any perl experts here interested in doing it? Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
Marc G. Fournier wrote: If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to add Reply-To: pghackers in pgsql-patches postings to help push discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers, which also gets its share of non-null discussion content. that is a very easy and quick change ... but wasn't doing that brought up before and alot of ppl were against that? If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled that one both ... Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to add Reply-To: pghackers in pgsql-patches postings to help push discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers, which also gets its share of non-null discussion content. that is a very easy and quick change ... but wasn't doing that brought up before and alot of ppl were against that? If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled that one both ... Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate. If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author? If so, that seems like a problem, particularly if they are not subscribed to the patches list. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate. If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author? If so, that seems like a problem, particularly if they are not subscribed to the patches list. Depends on the MUA. See both sides of the debate here: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html . We use reply-to for the pgfoundry admins list, but that's a closed list. For open lists that often accept non-member posts it is much more of a problem, not least for the reason you suggest. Let's add the author and the hackers list to the reply-to. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
Bruce Momjian wrote: Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate. If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author? If so, that seems like a problem, particularly if they are not subscribed to the patches list. Depends on the MUA. See both sides of the debate here: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html . We use reply-to for the pgfoundry admins list, but that's a closed list. For open lists that often accept non-member posts it is much more of a problem, not least for the reason you suggest. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marc G. Fournier wrote: If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled that one both ... Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate. Indeed. The usual issue is that if someone hits personal reply their personal note to the author will go to the mailing list. Some lists have problems with people sending personal replies inappropriately but I doubt that's the case for -patches or -committers. I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually solve most of my original complaints and might reduce the pressure to find a better solution. The patches announcements themselves would still be basically invisible within the community. Even if someone isn't going to read or apply the actual patch I think there is an enormous benefit to be gained from having everyone at least know it went by. Much as I'm sure not everyone reads every line of every message on -hackers but they are aware of what topics are under discussion. -- greg ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
* Greg Stark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually solve most of my original complaints and might reduce the pressure to find a better solution. The patches announcements themselves would still be basically invisible within the community. I'm with Greg on this one. I felt his original complaint made alot of sense and this doesn't really deal with it. I'd much rather see -patches go away or maybe become an alias to -hackers. If the patch is too big then perhaps either compress it or provide a link to it when it's submitted. If hosting for patches is an issue then perhaps provide a way for patches to be hosted on a PG server. Honestly, I'd be happy to put up any PG patches sent to me on a well connected server. I'm not sure how easy it'd be to automate that though (and prevent spammers/etc), but perhaps people have some suggestions? Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message One thing that came up in the discussion here was the idea of a weekly (or other time period) digest of patches posts, stripped of attachments, but with a link to the patches email, which will have both the attachment and follow-up posts for those that are interested. Proof of concept below my sig. -- Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200607111416 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 Weekly PostgreSQL patches summary: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00018.php From: Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PATCHES] CREATE TRIGGER locking Date: 2:25 AM on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 Last year, I questioned why CREATE TRIGGER acquires an AccessExclusiveLock on its target table: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-03/msg00764.php Acquiring an ExclusiveLock should be sufficient: we can safely allow concurrent SELECTs on the table. (The -hackers thread discusses both CREATE TRIGGER and ALTER TABLE ADD FK; the latter might require some more consideration, so I'll tackle that later.) This patch implements this change, and updates the documentation. Barring any objections, I'll apply this in a day or two. -Neil ---(end of broadcast)--- http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00021.php From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PATCHES] Draft patch for bug: ALTER TYPE ... USING(NULL) / NOT NULL violation Date: 6:37 PM on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 Attached is a rather hurried patch for Alexander Pravking's report that ALTER TABLE fails to check pre-existing NOT NULL constraints properly: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-07/msg00015.php It seems to work but I'm out of time to do more with it, and am leaving for Toronto in the morning. Anyone want to look it over, generate back-patches as appropriate, and apply? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00031.php From: Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PATCHES] BTree tid operators and opclass Date: 6:53 PM on Thursday, July 06, 2006 Here's a small patch to add the full suite of btree operators for tids and the corresponding btree opclass. This came up a while back on -hackers and a few people were interested in it at the time. I just had a need for it again so I added it. I'm not sure how to allocate OIDs. I just looked for the greatest one in the various .h files and started from there. It leads to some strange discontinuities since there were existing = and operators. -- greg ---(end of broadcast)--- http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00035.php From: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PATCHES] Win32 DEF file error Date: 11:30 AM on Monday, July 10, 2006 The Win32 DEF files that are generated for libpq contain the attribute DESCRIPTION, which is actually only allowed for device drivers. The compilers ignore it with a warning - if we remove them, we get rid of the warning. (ref http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vccore/ html/_core_description.asp) //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00037.php From: Dave Page dpage@vale-housing.co.uk Subject: [PATCHES] Minor ipv6/Win32 fix Date: 7:42 PM on Monday, July 10, 2006 The attached patch reverses ws2tcpip.h and winsock2.h to avoid an undefined symbol error when building under VC2k5. Regards, Dave ---(end of broadcast)--- http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00038.php From: James Gates [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PATCHES] Patch to configure to enable PostgreSQL build with Kerberos 5 on Solaris 11 Date: 7:50 PM on Monday, July 10, 2006 Included below are extracts from an earlier email thread (on pgsql-ports) discussing the problem. Attached are the context diffs for configure.in. This change has no impact unless the --with-krb5 option is used with configure. If the option *is* used, configure will now only search for function krb5_sendauth(), instead of looking for both krb5_encrypt() and krb5_sendauth(). I've tested (i.e. built using --with-krb5) with version 8.1.4 on Solaris 11 only. This change should have no negative impact for builds on other platforms since: a) The check for krb5_sendauth() remains, which is sufficient to determine the presence of Kerberos 5 and b) None of the PostgreSQL code uses krb5_encrypt() anyway James Gates wrote: Prior to Solaris 11 (Nevada), the full Kerberos 5 API was never exposed (only the gss interface), so building PostgreSQL with the --with-krb5 option
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let's add the author and the hackers list to the reply-to. I think reply-to is just a single address. It may work in some mailers though. Regardless the issue is that someone may send a personal message and be surprised when it's broadcast. You can always resent a message accidentally sent personally but you can't unsend one that should not have seen wider distribution. -- greg ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to add Reply-To: pghackers in pgsql-patches postings to help push discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers, which also gets its share of non-null discussion content. that is a very easy and quick change ... but wasn't doing that brought up before and alot of ppl were against that? If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled that one both ... Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate. If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author? If so, that seems like a problem, particularly if they are not subscribed to the patches list. The Reply-To: header is added to other heads ... in Pine, at least, I have the option to honor, or disregard, the Reply-To ... I generally honor it, but there is nothing stop'ng someone from disregarding it, and sending to the original poster ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 06:28:31PM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message One thing that came up in the discussion here was the idea of a weekly (or other time period) digest of patches posts, stripped of attachments, but with a link to the patches email, which will have both the attachment and follow-up posts for those that are interested. Proof of concept below my sig. I've done a little bit of this in the form of short summaries in the Weekly News, and I'd be delighted to do more of it. I'd need some help, though :) Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Greg Stark wrote: I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually solve most of my original complaints and might reduce the pressure to find a better solution. The patches announcements themselves would still be basically invisible within the community. How do you deal with the case where someone posts a patch, but it isn't an attachment? Its part of the actual text? Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 01:04:09AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: I, for one, would be interested in something like that ... somehow, this 'stripping' would have to be done within Majordomo2 itself, or ... Leave pgsql-patches@ as an alias that is the stripper, with the end result forwarded over to the pgsql-hackers@ list? I have in the past had a script that took email, pushed the attachments to disk and forwarded the email on. It's not spectacularly intelligent though, but I was thinking it could be used as a sort of patch queue. However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in digest form (where I look at the summary to see if it's interesting) and read -patches occasionally via the archives to see if anything is there... Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/ From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
Martjin, Greg, Marc, etc.: However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in digest form (where I look at the summary to see if it's interesting) and read -patches occasionally via the archives to see if anything is there... I agree that mangling the reply-tos would be the least complex (and thus probably best) solution. Unlike attachment stripping, this is supported by majordomo. However, to save on spam filtering, the reply-to should add -hackers *also*, not instead. --Josh Berkus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
Marc, You've lost me on that last point ... how does that save on spam filtering? Many spam filters give points for reply-to address does not match from address. --Josh ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Josh Berkus wrote: Martjin, Greg, Marc, etc.: However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in digest form (where I look at the summary to see if it's interesting) and read -patches occasionally via the archives to see if anything is there... I agree that mangling the reply-tos would be the least complex (and thus probably best) solution. Unlike attachment stripping, this is supported by majordomo. However, to save on spam filtering, the reply-to should add -hackers *also*, not instead. You've lost me on that last point ... how does that save on spam filtering? Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote: Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote: BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides. Alternatively, people could just use patches for patch submission and keep all discussion on hackers. If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to add Reply-To: pghackers in pgsql-patches postings to help push discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers, which also gets its share of non-null discussion content. that is a very easy and quick change ... but wasn't doing that brought up before and alot of ppl were against that? If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled that one both ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Josh Berkus wrote: Martjin, Greg, Marc, etc.: However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in digest form (where I look at the summary to see if it's interesting) and read -patches occasionally via the archives to see if anything is there... I agree that mangling the reply-tos would be the least complex (and thus probably best) solution. Unlike attachment stripping, this is supported by majordomo. However, to save on spam filtering, the reply-to should add -hackers *also*, not instead. You've lost me on that last point ... how does that save on spam filtering? He is saying that other mail servers might think our email is spam, but I think the risk is worth it. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
[HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
Pursuant to a conversation this evening I would like to a suggestion: BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides. My complaint is that -patches serves to a) siphon off some of the most technical discussion from -hackers to somewhere where fewer hackers read regularly leaving a lower signal-to-noise ratio on -hackers. b) partition the discussions in strange ways making it harder to carry on coherent threads or check past discussions for conclusions. c) encourages patches to sit in queues until a committer can review it rather than have non-committers eyeballing it or even applying it locally and using it before it's ready to be committed to HEAD. The only defence I've heard for the existence of -patches is that it avoids large attachments filling people's inboxes. To that end I would suggest replacing it with a script on the mail server to strip out attachments and replace them with a link to some place where they can be downloaded. This could conceivably evolve into some sort of simple patch queue system where committers could view a list of patches and mark them when they get rejected or committed. I'm not suggesting anything like a bug tracking system, just a simple page should suffice. I fear by sending this I may have just volunteered to execute it. But if it's the case that people support my suggestion I would be happy to do so. -- greg ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote: Pursuant to a conversation this evening I would like to a suggestion: BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides. Alternatively, people could just use patches for patch submission and keep all discussion on hackers. Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
On Mon, 9 Jul 2006, Greg Stark wrote: Pursuant to a conversation this evening I would like to a suggestion: BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides. My complaint is that -patches serves to a) siphon off some of the most technical discussion from -hackers to somewhere where fewer hackers read regularly leaving a lower signal-to-noise ratio on -hackers. b) partition the discussions in strange ways making it harder to carry on coherent threads or check past discussions for conclusions. c) encourages patches to sit in queues until a committer can review it rather than have non-committers eyeballing it or even applying it locally and using it before it's ready to be committed to HEAD. The only defence I've heard for the existence of -patches is that it avoids large attachments filling people's inboxes. To that end I would suggest replacing it with a script on the mail server to strip out attachments and replace them with a link to some place where they can be downloaded. This could conceivably evolve into some sort of simple patch queue system where committers could view a list of patches and mark them when they get rejected or committed. I'm not suggesting anything like a bug tracking system, just a simple page should suffice. I fear by sending this I may have just volunteered to execute it. But if it's the case that people support my suggestion I would be happy to do so. I, for one, would be interested in something like that ... somehow, this 'stripping' would have to be done within Majordomo2 itself, or ... Leave pgsql-patches@ as an alias that is the stripper, with the end result forwarded over to the pgsql-hackers@ list? Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches considered harmful
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote: BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides. Alternatively, people could just use patches for patch submission and keep all discussion on hackers. If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to add Reply-To: pghackers in pgsql-patches postings to help push discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers, which also gets its share of non-null discussion content. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
