On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 20:35, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>
>> But all it means is you get a random subset of the messages.
>> You're still missing most of the admin or sql or performance
>> related threads since they're mostly on -general anyways. Those
>> three categories cover pr
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Ned Lilly wrote:
> +1 for the idea, and +1 for the Zork reference. Hello sailor.
fwiw it's older than Zork. It comes from Adventure
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Cave_Adventure)
--
greg
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:06 -0400, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> >
>>
>> if we want specific topics, then remove -general, -novice, -admin
>
> This will likely never fly, see the archives.
>
well, -novice shuold be easy... actually it has no rea
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:06 -0400, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Kevin Grittner
> >> wrote:
> >>> My set is different, but the principle is the same -- I can't
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Kevin Grittner
>> wrote:
>>> My set is different, but the principle is the same -- I can't find
>>> the time to read all messages to all lists (really, I've t
+1 for the idea, and +1 for the Zork reference. Hello sailor.
On 4/8/2010 1:11 AM Greg Stark wrote:
I've often said in the past that we have too many mailing lists with
overlapping and vague charters. I submit the following thread as
evidence that this causes real problems.
http://archives.pos
Greg Stark wrote:
> But all it means is you get a random subset of the messages.
> You're still missing most of the admin or sql or performance
> related threads since they're mostly on -general anyways. Those
> three categories cover pretty much all of -general.
Well, one of these more specif
Greg Stark wrote:
> But all it means is you get a random subset of the messages.
> You're still missing most of the admin or sql or performance
> related threads since they're mostly on -general anyways. Those
> three categories cover pretty much all of -general.
Perhaps -general should be eli
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>> My set is different, but the principle is the same -- I can't find
>> the time to read all messages to all lists (really, I've tried), so
>> I limit by list to try to target the issues o
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> My set is different, but the principle is the same -- I can't find
> the time to read all messages to all lists (really, I've tried), so
> I limit by list to try to target the issues of most interest to me.
But all it means is you get a rand
On 4/7/10 10:11 PM, Greg Stark 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
> exception of pgsql-performance which has a weird comb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> Perhaps further clarifying the charters of the various lists would
> help, but folding too much into any one list is likely to reduce the
> number of readers or cause "spotty" attention. (When I was
> attempting to follow all the lists, I'd t
Robert Haas wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Greg Stark 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 prob
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:46 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Greg Stark 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 s
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Greg Stark 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 s
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Dave Page 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@postgresql.org)
To make chan
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Greg Stark 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.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Greg Stark 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
Sop
I've often said in the past that we have too many mailing lists with
overlapping and vague charters. I submit the following thread as
evidence that this causes real problems.
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/g2o4b46b5f01004010610ib8625426uae6ee90ac1435...@mail.gmail.com
Because the poste
19 matches
Mail list logo
