Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>> Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)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 do monitor that list, and try to respond to those issues I can,
but had no clue what that message was about -- so I left it for
someone else to take up. I often see Tom responding to posts on
that list, so I kinda figure anything serious (or where I get it
wrong) will be addressed by him, but this thread makes me wonder
whether we should advise people not to post there when there is any
indication of possible corruption or bugs.
>>> I've never understand what the point of pgsql-admin is; just
>>> about every question posted is an "admin" question of some sort.
I think you just answered your own question. I've considered it to
be a list for DBAs (or those filling that role, regardless of title)
to discuss administrative and operational issues and "best
practices". That seems useful to me.
>> 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.
>
> Yeah. I read -performance, -hackers, -bugs, but not -sql, -admin,
> -general.
My set is different, but the principle is the same -- I can't find
the time to read all messages to all lists (really, I've tried), so
I limit by list to try to target the issues of most interest to me.
> Consolidating multiple mailing lists to increase viewership of
> certain messages is only going to work if everyone who now follows
> each of the smaller mailing lists does an equally good job
> following the bigger one. That doesn't seem like a safe
> assumption.
Agreed.
Perhaps further clarifying the charters of the various lists would
help, but folding too much into any one list is likely to reduce the
number of readers or cause "spotty" attention. (When I was
attempting to follow all the lists, I'd typically give up when I
fell about 6000 messages behind, and try to start up again "cold"
after having missed a big interval of messages.)
-Kevin