On 3/19/22 14:48, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-03-03 13:37:35 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:28, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation
>>>> rules for people in that way I'm afraid.
>>>>
>>> Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's not so convenient. Lead to
>>> answers before the questions in the thread [1], seems weird.
>>>
>> Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are messages
>> legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually moderate
>> -hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.
> I don't think it's actually that rare. But most contributors writing that
> large patchsets know about the limit and work around it - I gzip patches when
> I see the email getting too large. But it's more annoying to work with for
> reviewers.
>
> It's somewhat annoying. If you e.g. append a few graphs of performance changes
> and a patch it's pretty easy to get into the range where compressing won't
> help anymore.
>
> And sure, any limit may be hit by somebody. But 1MB across the whole email
> seems pretty low these days.
>
Of course we could get complaints no matter what level we set the limit
at. I think raising it to 2Mb would be a reasonable experiment. If no
observable evil ensues then leave it that way. If it does then roll it
back. I agree that plain uncompressed patches are easier to deal with in
general.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
