On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 5/27/10 5:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus 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
On 5/27/10 5:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus 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
Josh Berkus 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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.or
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.
You're missing my point.
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
Josh Berkus 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 de
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
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
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Marc G. Fournier 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
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Rob Wultsch 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" w
[redirected to -chat]
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Wultsch 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.
Except, when you do post,
> 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@postgresql.org)
To
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
And IMHO, that is as much a fault of the 'old timers' on the lists as the
newbies ... if nobody redirects / loosely enforces the mandates of the
various lists, newbies aren't going to learn to
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> And IMHO, that is as much a fault of the 'old timers' on the lists as the
> newbies ... if nobody redirects / loosely enforces the mandates of the
> various lists, newbies aren't going to learn to post to more appropriate
> ones ...
>
o
[moved to -chat]
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Kevin Grittner wrote:
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.
*Exact
Greg Stark 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 w
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Greg Smith 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 novi
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
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.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> 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.
Only if they aren't hoping to get a
Tom Lane wrote:
I can see the need for small tightly-focused special lists.
How about a list devoted to discussions about reorganizing the lists?
It would get plenty of traffic, and then I could not subscribe to that
and have that many less messages to read.
There is only one viable soluti
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:
FYI, I usually email new people privately that cross-posting a question
can cause the question to be ignored. They usually respond positively
and avoid it in the future.
We all have our own methods ... for instance, I just CC'd this to -chat
with a
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > I can't imagine that there's not going to need to be a "catchall"
> > list for problems that don't fit into any of the subcategories.
> >
> > More generally, we already have most of the lists that you
> > suggest, and we already know that people fre
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Second, regarding advocacy: no, absolutely not. -advocacy is a working list
> and not a virtual water cooler.
+1. I would find it very difficult to manage having -advocacy thrown
into -general.
If folks think that information isn't getting
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Josh Berkus wrote:
First off, this is absolutely the wrong list to be discussing management of
PostgreSQL lists. That belongs on pgsql-www.
Actually, this is as good a list as any ... -www is for WWW related
issues, not mailing list ... be as inappropriate there as it wo
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Well, redoubling our current efforts to direct people to more
specific lists would accomplish nothing, since doubling zero leaves
you with zero. The description of -general includes:
Agreed ...
Given that, the fact that -admin, -novice, -sql, and -p
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Yeb Havinga wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010:
My $0.02 - I like the whole 'don't sort, search' (or how did they
call
it?) just let th
There is no reason why advocacy can't happen on general. Theoretically
www could be on hackers (although I do see the point of a separate
list).
First off, this is absolutely the wrong list to be discussing management
of PostgreSQL lists. That belongs on pgsql-www. And, I'll point out,
tha
Tom Lane wrote:
> I can't imagine that there's not going to need to be a "catchall"
> list for problems that don't fit into any of the subcategories.
>
> More generally, we already have most of the lists that you
> suggest, and we already know that people frequently don't find the
> most approp
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Yeb Havinga wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010:
My $0.02 - I like the whole 'don't sort, search' (or how did they call
it?) just let the inbox fill up, google is
"Marc G. Fournier" writes:
> why not close down -general so that ppl *have* to use better pick where to
> post their question ...
I can't imagine that there's not going to need to be a "catchall" list
for problems that don't fit into any of the subcategories.
More generally, we already have mos
"Marc G. Fournier" wrote:
> -sql : how to write a query
> -performance : how to improve performance of my queries
> -admin : how to admin the server
> -novice : I'm a new user
> -odbc : how to use ...
> -php : php related interface questions
> -interfaces : more general then -odbc
>
> why not c
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Kevin Grittner wrote:
"Greg Sabino Mullane" wrote:
Would anyone argue against rolling those two (sql and admin) into
-general as a first step?
At the risk of repeating myself, I won't be able to keep up with the
traffic of the combined list; so rather than read 100% of
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
There is no reason why advocacy can't happen on general. Theoretically
www could be on hackers (although I do see the point of a separate
list).
I don't feel as strong about -advocacy being r
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
... is there a reason why, other the fact that we don't do now, that we
can't just put in a restriction against cross posting altogether?
Because that would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
"Greg Sabino Mullane" wrote:
> Would anyone argue against rolling those two (sql and admin) into
> -general as a first step?
At the risk of repeating myself, I won't be able to keep up with the
traffic of the combined list; so rather than read 100% of the
messages from a smaller set, I'll need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> There is no reason why advocacy can't happen on general. Theoretically
> www could be on hackers (although I do see the point of a separate
> list).
I don't feel as strong about -advocacy being removed, but we certainly
can fold in -sql and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> ... is there a reason why, other the fact that we don't do now, that we
> can't just put in a restriction against cross posting altogether?
Because that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Cross-posting
is often desirable. If we had a
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010:
My $0.02 - I like the whole 'don't sort, search' (or how did they call
it?) just let the inbox fill up, google is fast enough. What would be
really interes
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
If most of the questions are badly categorized or cross posted to more
than one list, how useful a label is the X-Mailing-List header? How
useful is to filter on the "pgsql-general" label?
That is a point, but, IMHO, that is one of our key issues ...
Excerpts from Marc G. Fournier's message of jue may 13 23:11:40 -0400 2010:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Between labels, filters, watch lists and all the other goodies any MUA
> > will give you, I see no reason to have this all broken out anymore.
>
> So, if one merges all
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Between labels, filters, watch lists and all the other goodies any MUA
will give you, I see no reason to have this all broken out anymore.
So, if one merges all the lists into one (not arguing for / against that),
how do you filter? Based on what?
"Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 19:13 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> But that, IMHO, is the point of the smaller list ... it allows the group
>> on that list to hash out their ideas, and, hopefully, deal with both
>> arguments and counter arguments so that when presented to
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 19:13 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Marc G. Fournier" writes:
> >> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>> We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also
> >>> pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure...
> >
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" writes:
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote:
We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also
pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure...
But, we are doing that now with pgsql-cluster-hackers and it looks to be
working
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010:
>
>> Now I made a new gmail account
>
> Yeah, this approach is interesting. A few days ago I started using Sup
> ( http://sup.rubyforge.org/ ) to manage my email
Feature wise, I think gnus offers more
"Marc G. Fournier" writes:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also
>> pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure...
> But, we are doing that now with pgsql-cluster-hackers and it looks to be
> working quite well from what I can see
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010:
My $0.02 - I like the whole 'don't sort, search' (or how did they call
it?) just let the inbox fill up, google is fast enough. What would be
really interesting is to have some extr
Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010:
> Now I made a new gmail account, subscribed to all lists with some volume
> and let it all message per message come into the inbox. Together with
> thunderbird/imap this works quite nicely. With filters it's possible to
> t
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
My thought had been a split along the lines of major components of the server
... for instance, a totally seperate list for HS related issues, so that, if
nothing else, those 'lurkers' that
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> My thought had been a split along the lines of major components of the server
> ... for instance, a totally seperate list for HS related issues, so that, if
> nothing else, those 'lurkers' that are only interested in developments on
>
Greg Stark wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
The difference between discussing a patch and discussing an idea that
might lead to a patch is fairly fine.
And importantly -- who would be able to subscribe to one and not the
other? If you have to subscribe to bot
My thought had been a split along the lines of major components of the
server ... for instance, a totally seperate list for HS related issues, so
that, if nothing else, those 'lurkers' that are only interested in
developments on that front could be there but not on the main stream
-hackers ..
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> The difference between discussing a patch and discussing an idea that
> might lead to a patch is fairly fine.
And importantly -- who would be able to subscribe to one and not the
other? If you have to subscribe to both to get make any sense of
Le 11/05/2010 19:24, Alvaro Herrera a écrit :
> Excerpts from Marc G. Fournier's message of mar may 11 09:58:34 -0400 2010:
>
>> If list traffic, especially on -hackers, is getting so large, should we
>> look at maybe splitting it? I could easily enough split things such that
>> I duplicate the
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote:
>>>
I'm thinking I'll move -general (and the useless -novice) to another
f
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote:
I'm thinking I'll move -general (and the useless -novice) to another folder.
But I'm left wondering what to do with -admin and -performance. They're a
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking I'll move -general (and the useless -novice) to another folder.
>> But I'm left wondering what to do with -admin and -performance. They're a
>> random mix of user content and devel
On Wed, 12 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote:
I'm thinking I'll move -general (and the useless -novice) to another
folder. But I'm left wondering what to do with -admin and -performance.
They're a random mix of user content and developer content. I'll
probably move them along with -general but that m
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> Excerpts from Marc G. Fournier's message of mar may 11 09:58:34 -0400
>> 2010:
>>
>>> If list traffic, especially on -hackers, is getting so large, should we
>>> look at maybe splitting it?
Excerpts from Marc G. Fournier's message of mar may 11 09:58:34 -0400 2010:
> If list traffic, especially on -hackers, is getting so large, should we
> look at maybe splitting it? I could easily enough split things such that
> I duplicate the subscriber list, so nobody would have to subscribe,
On Tue, 11 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Marc G. Fournier's message of mar may 11 09:58:34 -0400 2010:
If list traffic, especially on -hackers, is getting so large, should we
look at maybe splitting it? I could easily enough split things such that
I duplicate the subscriber li
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 10:23 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Sure. You did a huge job of getting HS done and I will try to help
> where I can, and I know you have a business to run
> (http://www.2ndquadrant.com/).
2ndQuadrant is in the end the main and final reason Hot Standby exists
and has now fu
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> Not sure where the split would be, mind you ... almost thinking about patch
>> review / discussions vs hashing out new features or something like that ...
> We just *discontinued* -patches.
Yeah, it's not tim
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 09:50 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > >
> > > Traffic on the PostgreSQL lists is very high now and I freely admit that
> > > reading every email is simply not possible for me, even the ones that
> > > mention topics that keyword sea
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 09:50 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > Traffic on the PostgreSQL lists is very high now and I freely admit that
> > reading every email is simply not possible for me, even the ones that
> > mention topics that keyword searches tell me are of potential
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> Traffic on the PostgreSQL lists is very high now and I freely admit that
>>> reading every email is simply not possible for me, even the ones that
>>> mention topics
On Tue, 11 May 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Traffic on the PostgreSQL lists is very high now and I freely admit that
reading every email is simply not possible for me, even the ones that
mention topics that keyword searches tell me are of potential interest.
If anybody knows
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> Traffic on the PostgreSQL lists is very high now and I freely admit that
> reading every email is simply not possible for me, even the ones that
> mention topics that keyword searches tell me are of potential interest.
>
> If anybody knows of a bug or suspected bug in my co
68 matches
Mail list logo
