| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marc G(dot) Fournier <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: List traffic |
| Date: | 2010-05-13 21:29:10 |
| Message-ID: | m2zl03a3tl.fsf@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-chat pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010:
>
>> Now I made a new gmail account
>
> Yeah, this approach is interesting. A few days ago I started using Sup
> ( http://sup.rubyforge.org/ ) to manage my email
Feature wise, I think gnus offers more than the two approaches
combined. Speed wise some people use it with some indexing solution, I'm
not finding the need yet.
And yes, to handle our lists traffic you must have a MUA made for
it. That's the reason why I switched, and it's working great here.
Regards,
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | chirag.dave | 2010-05-13 21:47:21 | Re: Slony-I - Update trigger on a replicated table |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-13 21:19:08 | Re: List traffic |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2010-05-13 22:13:30 | Re: List traffic |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-13 21:19:08 | Re: List traffic |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joao Ferreira | 2010-05-13 22:05:52 | autovacuum: 50% iowait for hours |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-13 21:19:08 | Re: List traffic |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-13 21:39:11 | Re: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2010-05-13 21:25:10 | Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle |