"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Matthew T. O'connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development, I >> think trying to split them up is awkward at best. Do people really >> still think that the potential for larger messages is really a problem? > > Personally I'd be fine with abandoning -patches and just using -hackers. > We could try it for awhile, anyway, and go back if it seems worse.
I'm for that. >> By the way, what is the actual size limit on hackers vs patches. > > They do have different size limits; we'd have to raise the limit on > -hackers if we do this. Marc would know exactly what the limits are. Note that even the size limit on -patches is too small for some patches. What I did with previous large patches which were not getting through to patches was put them up on a web page but with a new filename for each version. So the URL for a given version *was* stable, the content never changed. You could check the index page to see if there were more recent versions. I would suggest putting large patches up on the wiki in cases like that now, but isn't there a size limit on the wiki too? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
