On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Greg Stark <st...@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 Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
