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