| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists |
| Date: | 2019-01-10 09:56:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCVNn-nH8XOACOS2ahsz9oG_uY9GjTva0YGNodxLquyHyw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Has the policy on cross-posting to multiple lists been hardened recently?
The "Crash on ALTER TABLE" thread [1] started on -bugs, but Andrew's
message on 8 Jan with an initial proposed patch and my response later
that day both CC'ed -hackers and seem to have been rejected, and so
are missing from the archives.
In that case, it's not a big deal because subsequent replies included
the text from the missing messages, so it's still possible to follow
the discussion, but I wanted to check whether this was an intentional
change of policy. If so, it seems a bit harsh to flat-out reject these
messages. My prior understanding was that cross-posting, while
generally discouraged, does still sometimes have value.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2019-01-10 10:10:16 | Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context for primary_conninfo and primary_slot_name |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2019-01-10 09:49:14 | Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-10 15:58:31 | Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists |
| Previous Message | Sergei Agalakov | 2019-01-04 20:13:51 | Re: Broken RAW and MBOX in mailing list archives web interface |