On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
>> Because the poster chose to send it to pgsql-admin instead of
>> pgsql-general (or pgsql-bugs) very few of the usual suspects had a
>> chance to see it. 7 days later a question about a rather serious
>> database corruption problem had no responses. I've never understand
>> what the point of pgsql-admin is; just about every question posted is
>> an "admin" question of some sort.
>
> I can't argue with that... but a counter argument is that merging
> lists would significantly increase the traffic on -general would may
> not be appreciated by the many people that are only subscribed to one
> or two of the affected lists. I would wager that the majority of
> people aren't subscribed to more than a small number of the available
> lists.
That's actually something we can easily find out, if we can get a list
of the subscribers emails into a Real Database. I know this bunch of
database geeks who write strange "ess-cue-ell kweriis", or whatever
they call it, to make such analysis...
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
