Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1623632B23 for ; Thu, 13 May 2010 19:13:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62307-08 for ; Thu, 13 May 2010 22:13:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110396323A7 for ; Thu, 13 May 2010 19:13:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC25234559BF for ; Thu, 13 May 2010 19:13:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54597-02; Thu, 13 May 2010 22:13:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id C14E53455944; Thu, 13 May 2010 19:13:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A80345593E; Thu, 13 May 2010 19:13:30 -0300 (ADT) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 19:13:30 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Tom Lane cc: Magnus Hagander , Greg Stark , Robert Haas , Alvaro Herrera , Bruce Momjian , Simon Riggs , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: List traffic In-Reply-To: <20506.1273785548@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: References: <201005111350.o4BDo4x27597@momjian.us> <1273598624-sup-3654@alvh.no-ip.org> <20506.1273785548@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201005/703 X-Sequence-Number: 162366 On Thu, 13 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" writes: >> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also >>> pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure... > >> But, we are doing that now with pgsql-cluster-hackers and it looks to be >> working quite well from what I can see ... > > Is it? If they want someplace where the majority of hackers won't see > the discussion, maybe, but I am not sure that's not counterproductive. > Ideas developed by a small group may or may not survive exposure when > they reach this list. But that, IMHO, is the point of the smaller list ... it allows the group on that list to hash out their ideas, and, hopefully, deal with both arguments and counter arguments so that when presented to the larger group, they would then have a more cohesive arg for their ideas ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org