Don't ya think pgsql-sql-windows is a bit overkill? It's not like pg's
behavior re sql changes on windows.
Gavin
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Dave,
>>
>>> That's a different issue altogether though (perfectly valid though). Is
>>> there a more appropriate way to split the existing groups perhaps? I'm
>>> opposed to shifting the windows users onto a platform specific group
>>> just because there's a lot of them. I'm not opposed to shifting them if
>>> we find there are lots of platform specific problems though.
>>
>>
>> Well, unfortunately, at least 70% of the Windows users can be counted
>> on not
>> to differentiate platform-specific issues from general ones. And
>> given the
>> flakyness of the platform, I expect there to be continuous issues.
>> Also, I'd
>> really rather not have a 25-post thread on PGSQL-SQL discussing how
>> XP-SP3
>> breaks PostgreSQL.
>>
>> While there are other possible lists we could add, the advantage of
>> PGSQL-WINDOWS is that it would attract a substantial portion of the new
>> users, which, for example, a list named PGSQL-INSTALL might not.
>
>
> I'm not ant-pgsql-windows, but I fear that the one thing you are
> trying to avoid is going to happen if we do create it ... namely, all
> new windows users will subscribe to that one list and post everything
> under the sun to it, making that one list pretty useless :(
>
> If anything, altho it might be long, let's do something like:
>
> pgsql-general-windows
> pgsql-novice-windows
> pgsql-admin-windows
> pgsql-sql-windows
>
> or something like that ... so that its not just the one list ...
>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
> (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ:
> 7615664
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if
> your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
