On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 15:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > I saw that but that only shows total lines, not the number of lines
> > > changed, or commits per hour, etc.
> >
> > I've got a database of all our commits with info like: timestamp,
> > author, number of rows a
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I saw that but that only shows total lines, not the number of lines
> > changed, or commits per hour, etc.
>
> I've got a database of all our commits with info like: timestamp,
> author, number of rows added/deleted, number of files modified, which
> files modified, rows
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
Ron Mayer wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 08:18 -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
> ... harder to keep
>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Ron Mayer wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 08:18 -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
... harder to keep
up with the list traffic; so some
On 23/11/2008 20:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> How about getting a new version of the world map showing developer's
> location?
Cool! Definitely +1 if we can show contributors to the list generally,
not just developers.
Ray.
--
Raym
Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, this project has always been pretty diversified geographically;
> we've had major contributors in Russia, Japan, and Australia for as far
> back as I can remember, not just Europe and the Americas. I think there
> are more people now, but I'm not convinced that the distrib
Craig Ringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> Another idea, I wonder if the project has gone more international and
>> therefore has more traffic at odd hours of the day for everyone.
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if that were the case. Alas, it's not
> possible to analyze
Craig Ringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> Another idea, I wonder if the project has gone more international and
>> therefore has more traffic at odd hours of the day for everyone. It would
>> also
>> mean more long-lived threads with large latencies between messages and
Gregory Stark wrote:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
So, to a first approximation, the PG list traffic has been constant
since 2000. Not the result I expected.
>>> I also was confused by its flatness. I am findin
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Ron Mayer wrote:
> >> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 08:18 -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... harder to keep
> >> up with the list traffic; so something is happening that
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So, to a first approximation, the PG list traffic has been constant
>>> since 2000. Not the result I expected.
>
>> I also was confused by its flatness. I am finding the email traffic
>> almos
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Huxton wrote:
>
>> Some of the EXPLAINs on the performance list are practically impossible
>> to read unless you've got the time to cut+paste and fix line-endings.
>
> Maybe we should start recommending people to post those via
> http://explain-
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 08:18 -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... harder to keep
>> up with the list traffic; so something is happening that a simple
>> volume count doesn't ca
Ron Mayer wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 08:18 -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> Tom Lane wrote:
> ... harder to keep
> up with the list traffic; so something is happening that a simple
> volume count doesn't capture.
> >> If measured
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Sam Mason wrote:
the following has links to more:
http://markmail.org/search/?q=list:org.postgresql
Wow, the spanish list is the 3rd in traffic after hackers and general!
yeah and that tom lane guy sent over 77000(!!!) mails to the lists up to
now ...
Stefan
--
On Friday 21 November 2008 19:10:45 Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I think this is most probably explained by repeat postings
> of successive versions of large patches. Still, Ron might be on to
> something. I had not considered message lengths in my previous
> numbers ...
Also consider that since we s
Bruce Momjian wrote:
brian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Perhaps it's just subjective: we're all getting older.
Which, as "Dr. A" (aka Isaac Asimov) pointed out in "The Sensuous Dirty
Old Man", beats the alternative.
I thought about that, which is scary in itself. :-( But I don't think
Steve Crawford wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > brian wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>
> >> Perhaps it's just subjective: we're all getting older.
> >>
> Which, as "Dr. A" (aka Isaac Asimov) pointed out in "The Sensuous Dirty
> Old Man", beats the alternative.
> > I thought about
brian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> I am finding the email traffic
> >> almost impossible to continue tracking, so something different is
> >> happening, but it seems it is not volume-related.
> >
> > Yes, my perception also is that it's getting
Tom Lane wrote:
Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Its because we eliminated the -patches mailing list.
That's part of it. I've added -patches to the graph at
http://0ape.com/postgres_mailinglist_size/ as well as
a graph of hackers+patches combined; and it still lo
Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Its because we eliminated the -patches mailing list.
Yeah, I think this is most probably explained by repeat postings
of successive versions of large patches. Still, Ron might be on to
something. I had not considered messa
Richard Huxton wrote:
> Some of the EXPLAINs on the performance list are practically impossible
> to read unless you've got the time to cut+paste and fix line-endings.
Maybe we should start recommending people to post those via
http://explain-analyze.info/
--
Alvaro Herrera
Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> Yes, my perception also is that it's getting harder and harder to keep
>> up with the list traffic; so something is happening that a simple
>> volume count doesn't capture.
>
> I am still relatively new to Postgres, but my impression is that the
> questions
> have gotten
Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Its because we eliminated the -patches mailing list.
> That's part of it. I've added -patches to the graph at
> http://0ape.com/postgres_mailinglist_size/ as well as
> a graph of hackers+patches combined; and it still looks
> like
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 08:18 -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
... harder to keep
up with the list traffic; so something is happening that a simple
volume count doesn't capture.
If measured in "bytes of the gzipped mbox" it ...
Its because we
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 08:18 -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
>> If measured in "bytes of the gzipped mbox" it looks like there's a
>> *huge* increase of volume on Hackers in the past 3 months - well
>> over twice the historical levels; and maybe 4X 2002-2006.
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 08:18 -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> I also was confused by its flatness. I am finding the email traffic
> >>> almost impossible to continue tracking, so something different is
> >>> happ
On Thursday 20 November 2008 7:59:31 pm Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So, to a first approximation, the PG list traffic has been constant
> >> since 2000. Not the result I expected.
> >
> > I also was confused by its flatness. I am finding th
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I also was confused by its flatness. I am finding the email traffic
almost impossible to continue tracking, so something different is
happening, but it seems it is not volume-related.
Yes, my perception also is tha
Sam Mason wrote:
> the following has links to more:
>
> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list:org.postgresql
Wow, the spanish list is the 3rd in traffic after hackers and general!
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting,
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 10:43 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> Markmail shows some graphs. The one on the "main page" gives the
> traffic for all the lists:
> http://pgsql.markmail.org/
>
> If you search for "pgsql-general" you get a graph for that list:
> http://pgsql.markmail.org
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:59:31PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yes, my perception also is that it's getting harder and harder to keep
> up with the list traffic; so something is happening that a simple
> volume count doesn't capture.
>
> Does anyone have the data to break it down per mailing list? T
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I know that my email (I am pretty sure I am subscribed to at least as
> > many lists as you) has been on a steady incline, especially through
> > -general and -hackers.
>
> I would have said the same, which is why I find it notewo
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
So, to a first approximation, the PG list traffic has been constant
since 2000. Not the result I expected.
>>> I also was confused by its flatness. I am finding the email traffic
>>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So, to a first approximation, the PG list traffic has been constant
> >> since 2000. Not the result I expected.
>
> > I also was confused by its flatness. I am finding the email traffic
> > almost impossible to
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 00:06 -0500, brian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> I am finding the email traffic
> >> almost impossible to continue tracking, so something different is
> >> happening, but it seems it is not volume-related.
> >
> > Yes, my pe
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 21:19 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 23:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I know that my email (I am pretty sure I am subscribed to at least as
> > > many lists as you) has been on a steady incline, especia
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 23:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I know that my email (I am pretty sure I am subscribed to at least as
> > many lists as you) has been on a steady incline, especially through
> > -general and -hackers.
>
> I would have said the
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
I am finding the email traffic
almost impossible to continue tracking, so something different is
happening, but it seems it is not volume-related.
Yes, my perception also is that it's getting harder and harder to keep
up with the li
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know that my email (I am pretty sure I am subscribed to at least as
> many lists as you) has been on a steady incline, especially through
> -general and -hackers.
I would have said the same, which is why I find it noteworthy that
my mail logs don't
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 22:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I got interested by Bruce's plot of PG email traffic here
> http://momjian.us/main/img/pgincoming.gifto
> and decided to try to extend it into the past. The data I have
> available is just my own incoming mail log, but being a pack-rat by
> nat
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So, to a first approximation, the PG list traffic has been constant
> >> since 2000. Not the result I expected.
>
> > I also was confused by its flatness. I am finding the email traffic
> > almost impossible to
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> So, to a first approximation, the PG list traffic has been constant
>> since 2000. Not the result I expected.
> I also was confused by its flatness. I am finding the email traffic
> almost impossible to continue tracking, so somethin
Tom Lane wrote:
> I got interested by Bruce's plot of PG email traffic here
> http://momjian.us/main/img/pgincoming.gif
> and decided to try to extend it into the past. The data I have
> available is just my own incoming mail log, but being a pack-rat by
> nature I have that back to April 1998. A
I got interested by Bruce's plot of PG email traffic here
http://momjian.us/main/img/pgincoming.gif
and decided to try to extend it into the past. The data I have
available is just my own incoming mail log, but being a pack-rat by
nature I have that back to April 1998. Attached is a graph of Post
45 matches
Mail list logo
