> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
> > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 12:25:09AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > >> i found this on the Monitoring section:
> > >> o Allow protocol-level BIND parameter values to be logged
> > >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-02/msg00165.php
> > >>
> > >> But i don't understand why that thread is related to the TODO item,
> > >> i'm missing something?
> >
> > > Possibly the message renumbering that Tom griped about:
> > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2006-07/msg00061.php
> >
> > Yeah. I think the TODO item is intended to point to what is now
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-02/msg00163.php
> > or one of the earlier messages in that thread.
> >
> > Perhaps when Bruce realizes he needs to recheck every link in the
> > TODO files, he'll get on the warpath with me ;-)
>
> (Sorry, just catching up on this issue.)
>
> Yes, I can fix the TODO item URLs, but many email messages reference
> URLs themselves:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-06/msg00096.php
>
> The URL in the email actually works, but I am sure others do not.
> Because we don't have control over the email contents (think Google), I
> don't think we can renumber old email items without a continual stream
> of complaints from users.
I always wonder why we don't add a unique id to each email message
itself. I mean let the mail list program to add sequencial number to
each email's subject. For example, emails pgsql-jp ML (PostgreSQL general
discussion in Japanese managed by JPUG) have subject headers like
this:
[pgsql-jp: 34814] pgpool 2.5 released
By using this method our TODO list can referer emais "logical" id
(34814 in this case) which is independent on archive URL.
Archive URL is something like a "phisical" id and maybe changed
accidentaly and is not convenitent for this kind of usage IMO.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
