Re: PITR Dead horse?

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > Is this something large enough, like the win32 stuff, that having a side
> > list for discussions is worth setting up?
>
> In terms of the amount of code to be written, I expect it's larger than
> the win32 porting effort. And it should be mostly pretty separate from
> hacking the core backend, since most of what remains to do is writing
> external management utilities (I think).
>
> I've been dissatisfied with having the separate pgsql-hackers-win32
> list; I feel it just fragments the discussion, and people tend to end up
> crossposting to -hackers anyway. But a separate list for PITR work
> might be a good idea despite that experience, since it seems like it'd
> be a more separable project.

I think the win32 email list has worked well. What is has allowed is
people who want to track only win32 to get only those emails. It
doesn't help people already on hackers because hacker input is needed.

There are currently 102 Win32 subscribers, and most are not on the
hackers list.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073