Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C27F6632538 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 12:52:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83752-09 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 15:52:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC06632B59 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 12:52:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942163455942 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 12:52:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92542-04; Thu, 27 May 2010 15:52:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id C99883455915; Thu, 27 May 2010 12:52:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B6D34558ED; Thu, 27 May 2010 12:52:28 -0300 (ADT) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 12:52:28 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Greg Stark cc: Jaime Casanova , Greg Smith , Tom Lane , jd@commandprompt.com, Magnus Hagander , Robert Haas , Alvaro Herrera , Bruce Momjian , Simon Riggs , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: List traffic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <201005111350.o4BDo4x27597@momjian.us> <20506.1273785548@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1273790358.8624.3132.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> <4913.1273790764@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4BECC5E5.1000901@2ndquadrant.com> 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=-0.011 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_20=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201005/1659 X-Sequence-Number: 163322 On Thu, 27 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote: > Sure, if we have distinctions which make sense then having separate > lists makes sense. Linux has separate lists for different drivers, > different parts of the kernel, projects to improve the kernel in > various specific ways (latency, etc). I'm all for having a list > dedicated to infrastructure (oddly named -www here) Actually, infrastructure is appropriately discussed on -sysadmins ... web is on -www ... tends to be a bit of overlap since -sysadmins was added later, and prior to that we did discuss on -www ... > since those topics are usually well defined. Lists like -ecpg or -odbc > would work fine if the traffic warranted them. I don't agree with the comment about 'if traffic warranted them' though ... the fact that there is very little traffic should be what makes them attractive / useful ... you don't have to weed through alot of posts to find the odbc/ecpg related ones ... > Perhaps what I'm looking for is a more sensible division that allows > most of the traffic related to the subtopics to actually go there. It > would have to be a division so clearcut that anyone who doesn't follow > could reasonably be blamed for not following etiquette. That's simply > not true with the current divisions. how about something -sql vs -tuning ... ? -tuning replacing -performance, which I do agree could be sql *or* server ... where -tuning would be more obviously server related ... ---- 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