Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Treat Sent: 23 August 2006 04:16 To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Cc: Peter Eisentraut; Tom Lane Subject: Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors) I've always been quite amazed how much email some of the folks here manage to process... I suppose I could just chalk it up to a pine vs. gui thing, but I suspect there are some other tricks people have to make emails more manageable (anyone combine all pg mail to one folder?) More or less - one for -www, webmaster and slaves stuff, and another for -odbc, -hackers, -patches, -committers, -perform, -general and so on. I do keep additional ones for FG and -core though. Everything is auto-filtered at our Exchange server so it's organised as I like whether I pick it up on PDA, webmail, PC or Mac. Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors)
On Thursday 17 August 2006 11:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me
either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to
revert to the old way?
Since almost the first day I hacked on PostgreSQL I have been filtering
both lists into the same folder, so they pretty much appear to be one
and the same to me anyway.
I'm curious, do you combine any other lists like that? I've played around
with that idea (for example, I used to combine webmaster emails, pgsql-www,
and -slaves emails but the slaves traffic was too high so I had to split it
back out). As someone subscribed to a good dozen pg lists, I've always been
quite amazed how much email some of the folks here manage to process... I
suppose I could just chalk it up to a pine vs. gui thing, but I suspect there
are some other tricks people have to make emails more manageable (anyone
combine all pg mail to one folder?)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES]
Robert Treat wrote: On Thursday 17 August 2006 11:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to revert to the old way? Since almost the first day I hacked on PostgreSQL I have been filtering both lists into the same folder, so they pretty much appear to be one and the same to me anyway. I'm curious, do you combine any other lists like that? I've played around with that idea (for example, I used to combine webmaster emails, pgsql-www, and -slaves emails but the slaves traffic was too high so I had to split it back out). As someone subscribed to a good dozen pg lists, I've always been quite amazed how much email some of the folks here manage to process... I suppose I could just chalk it up to a pine vs. gui thing, but I suspect there are some other tricks people have to make emails more manageable (anyone combine all pg mail to one folder?) Yes, all mine are in one folder, and I use elm ME. It is faster than a GUI email client. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting
I'm curious, do you combine any other lists like that? I've played around with that idea (for example, I used to combine webmaster emails, pgsql-www, and -slaves emails but the slaves traffic was too high so I had to split it back out). As someone subscribed to a good dozen pg lists, I've always been quite amazed how much email some of the folks here manage to process... I suppose I could just chalk it up to a pine vs. gui thing, but I suspect there are some other tricks people have to make emails more manageable (anyone combine all pg mail to one folder?) Well as someone who is also on almost all of the PostgreSQL lists, plus a number of sub projects :) I filter everything postgresql except for the funds list into a single box and I process each in order :). I used to break them up, but I found with cross posting, and trying to reference back and forth it was just easier to have a single box. I used to be a big pine user but due to the large amount of email I do process I had to move to Thunderbird which makes certain things just much easier. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors)
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Robert Treat wrote: ... some other tricks people have to make emails more manageable (anyone combine all pg mail to one folder?) Yes, all mine are in one folder, and I use elm ME. It is faster than a GUI email client. All my PG list mail goes into one folder too. The list bot is pretty good (not perfect :-() about sending only one copy of crossposted messages. Personally I use exmh, but I don't expect people who don't remember the Mesozoic era to know what that is. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors)
On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:15 , Robert Treat wrote: On Thursday 17 August 2006 11:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to revert to the old way? Since almost the first day I hacked on PostgreSQL I have been filtering both lists into the same folder, so they pretty much appear to be one and the same to me anyway. I'm curious, do you combine any other lists like that? I've played around with that idea (for example, I used to combine webmaster emails, pgsql-www, and -slaves emails but the slaves traffic was too high so I had to split it back out). As someone subscribed to a good dozen pg lists, I've always been quite amazed how much email some of the folks here manage to process... I suppose I could just chalk it up to a pine vs. gui thing, but I suspect there are some other tricks people have to make emails more manageable (anyone combine all pg mail to one folder?) Reading pg ml mail is relatively high on my list of things I want to do, so I have it all come into my inbox. However, with other mailing lists (e.g., ruby-talk and the RoR lists which have the highest volume of any mailing list I'm subscribed to) I generally have them routed into their own folder. I usually let lower-volume mailing lists just end up in my inbox as well Mail.app on Mac OS X 10.4. I make heavy use of the Mail Act-on[1] plugin to make further processing of mail easier (such as archiving to appropriate folders). Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net [1](http://www.indev.ca/MailActOn.html) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Robert Treat wrote: ... some other tricks people have to make emails more manageable (anyone combine all pg mail to one folder?) Yes, all mine are in one folder, and I use elm ME. It is faster than a GUI email client. All my PG list mail goes into one folder too. The list bot is pretty good (not perfect :-() about sending only one copy of crossposted messages. Personally I use exmh, but I don't expect people who don't remember the Mesozoic era to know what that is. I know what it is from text books ;). Practical Unix 3rd Ed, by Sobel I think it was. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors)
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ever since pgsql-patches replies started going to -hackers, threading doesn't work anymore, so I for one can't tell what this refers to at all. Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to revert to the old way? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting
Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ever since pgsql-patches replies started going to -hackers, threading doesn't work anymore, so I for one can't tell what this refers to at all. Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to revert to the old way? I'd vote for reverting to the old way. Anyone serious about hacking should be on both lists. Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting
Joe Conway wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ever since pgsql-patches replies started going to -hackers, threading doesn't work anymore, so I for one can't tell what this refers to at all. Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to revert to the old way? I'd vote for reverting to the old way. Anyone serious about hacking should be on both lists. +1 -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting
Tom, all: I thought the strategy was to provide a way to subscribe to pgsql-patches, get the text of the messages, and not get the attachments. Was that techincally infeasable? --Josh ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors)
Tom Lane wrote: Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to revert to the old way? Since almost the first day I hacked on PostgreSQL I have been filtering both lists into the same folder, so they pretty much appear to be one and the same to me anyway. The only step that would optimize that situation further would be doing away with pgsql-patches and telling people to send patches to pgsql-hackers. I understand that some people may not care for the extra volume that the patches bring in. But with 250+ kB of hackers mail a day, the few patches don't seem all that significant. And to be serious about hacking (and tracking the hacking) you need to get both lists anyway, so it would make sense to me to just have one. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to revert to the old way? Since almost the first day I hacked on PostgreSQL I have been filtering both lists into the same folder, so they pretty much appear to be one and the same to me anyway. The only step that would optimize that situation further would be doing away with pgsql-patches and telling people to send patches to pgsql-hackers. I understand that some people may not care for the extra volume that the patches bring in. But with 250+ kB of hackers mail a day, the few patches don't seem all that significant. And to be serious about hacking (and tracking the hacking) you need to get both lists anyway, so it would make sense to me to just have one. how many very large patches are sent? Not too many. We could in fact put a limit on the attachment size and make people publish very large patches some other way (on the web, say?) cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting
Ever since pgsql-patches replies started going to -hackers, threading doesn't work anymore, so I for one can't tell what this refers to at all. Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to revert to the old way? I'd vote for reverting to the old way. Anyone serious about hacking should be on both lists. Then why bother with two different lists? If developers need to be on both list (which I beleive they do), and the focus of both lists is developers, then why not just remove one of them and get rid of the problem? //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting
Magnus Hagander wrote: Then why bother with two different lists? If developers need to be on both list (which I beleive they do), and the focus of both lists is developers, then why not just remove one of them and get rid of the problem? I wouldn't argue with that. It would be at least equally good from my perspective, and maybe slightly better. Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting
On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Ever since pgsql-patches replies started going to -hackers, threading doesn't work anymore, so I for one can't tell what this refers to at all. Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to revert to the old way? I'd vote for reverting to the old way. Anyone serious about hacking should be on both lists. Then why bother with two different lists? If developers need to be on both list (which I beleive they do), and the focus of both lists is developers, then why not just remove one of them and get rid of the problem? One reason might be that a lot of application developers who develop applications or modules associated with PG, but not the core PG code itself also lurk on -hackers, as it's by far the best way to keep up with the status of various PG enhancements (and also an excellent place to pick up a lot of undocumented good practices). Cheers, Steve ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting
I'd vote for reverting to the old way. Anyone serious about hacking should be on both lists. Then why bother with two different lists? If developers need to be on both list (which I beleive they do), and the focus of both lists is developers, then why not just remove one of them and get rid of the problem? One reason might be that a lot of application developers who develop applications or modules associated with PG, but not the core PG code itself also lurk on -hackers, as it's by far the best way to keep up with the status of various PG enhancements (and also an excellent place to pick up a lot of undocumented good practices). Won't you learn even more good practices if you actually see the patches as well? :-P The bottom line is, I think, does the volume of mail on -patches actually make a big difference given the much higher volume on -hackers? (If you just want to skip the patches, just set up attachment filtering on the list..) //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors)
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:20:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ever since pgsql-patches replies started going to -hackers, threading doesn't work anymore, so I for one can't tell what this refers to at all. Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to revert to the old way? Has that actually been working? I seem to still get replies in both places... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting
On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Then why bother with two different lists? If developers need to be on both list (which I beleive they do), and the focus of both lists is developers, then why not just remove one of them and get rid of the problem? Didn't I say something about not being able to convince people by arguing but being sure people would come around eventually? :) Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One reason might be that a lot of application developers who develop applications or modules associated with PG, but not the core PG code itself also lurk on -hackers, as it's by far the best way to keep up with the status of various PG enhancements (and also an excellent place to pick up a lot of undocumented good practices). Well if they want to keep up with the status of various PG enhancements they had better be seeing the patches too since that's where that information is! They don't have to read the actual patches but at least see the messages describing them and their status. As the work progresses that's the only way to clearly understand the status of it. I originally suggested having the list manager strip out attachments, save them on a web accessible place and insert a url in the message. I think we're blocking on having that implemented in majordomo. If people are coming around to my suggestion then I'll talk to Marc and see if I can help implement that. I'm not sure what the majordomo code looks like so I don't know how easy it is to hack in filters like that. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] selecting
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Magnus Hagander wrote: Then why bother with two different lists? If developers need to be on both list (which I beleive they do), and the focus of both lists is developers, then why not just remove one of them and get rid of the problem? I wouldn't argue with that. It would be at least equally good from my perspective, and maybe slightly better. One big difference between the two lists is the maximum-message-size policy ;-). To unify them we would need to relax the size limit on -hackers, and I'm not convinced that's a good idea. It would likely drive away at least some people who currently provide valuable ideas even though they don't care to receive -patches. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
