Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gi458-0004NX-Sg for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:11:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gi457-0001dR-Ih for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:11:09 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gi457-0001dK-9s for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:11:09 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gi455-0000d2-0u for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:11:08 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x0BLB1X5030750; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:11:01 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Alvaro Herrera cc: Andres Freund , Stephen Frost , Tatsuo Ishii , dpage@pgadmin.org, dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com, pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org, Magnus Hagander Subject: Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists In-reply-to: <201901111833.hj64gsinrug7@alvherre.pgsql> References: <201901111833.hj64gsinrug7@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:33:25 -0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <30748.1547241061.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:11:01 -0500 Message-ID: <30749.1547241061@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Alvaro Herrera writes: > On 2019-Jan-11, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2019-01-11 11:38:05 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> Thoughts? Specific votes in one of those directions would help me, at >>> least, figure out what should be done today. >> I think you should just revert to the prior state, and then we can >> discuss potential solutions and the problems they're intended to >> address. > +1 Same here. The problem you want to solve has been there for decades, we don't need a solution urgently. regards, tom lane