Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors)
Date
Msg-id 200608171755.11490.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [PATCHES] selecting
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me
> either.  Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to
> revert to the old way?

Since almost the first day I hacked on PostgreSQL I have been filtering 
both lists into the same folder, so they pretty much appear to be one 
and the same to me anyway.  The only step that would optimize that 
situation further would be doing away with pgsql-patches and telling 
people to send patches to pgsql-hackers.  I understand that some people 
may not care for the extra volume that the patches bring in.  But with 
250+ kB of hackers mail a day, the few patches don't seem all that 
significant.  And to be serious about hacking (and tracking the 
hacking) you need to get both lists anyway, so it would make sense to 
me to just have one.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Matthew T. O'Connor"
Date:
Subject: Re: Autovacuum maintenance window (was Re: Adjust autovacuum
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [PATCHES] selecting