On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 23:54, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 23:45, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>>> This was stuck in the moderation queue because of message size limit (30
>>>> kB). Is it worth increasing that value?
>>> Evidently we should. pgindent and copyright-update commits are likely
>>> to be at least this long.
>> That's twice a year only - I don't see a big problem moderating those
>> when it happens...
> Its not so much the moderation load, as I don't like being blindsided by
> commits that touch everything in sight. Finding out only when you try
> to do git push (as indeed happened to me just this afternoon because of
> this patch) is annoying.
fair enough. I'm not sure the size limit actually protects us against
anything, so I'm not against increasing it.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Shigeru HANADA||Date: 2010-11-25 08:51:11|
|Subject: Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw|
|Previous:||From: Shigeru HANADA||Date: 2010-11-25 08:12:46|
|Subject: SQL/MED - postgresql_fdw|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Itagaki Takahiro||Date: 2010-11-25 11:18:28|
|Subject: pgsql: Don't raise "identifier will be truncated" messages in dblink|
|Previous:||From: Chang Chao||Date: 2010-11-25 06:40:58|
|Subject: How strings are sorted by LC_COLLATE specifically?|