Re: Not ready for 8.3

From: "Nathan Buchanan" <nbinont(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tatsuo Ishii" <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc, alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Not ready for 8.3
Date: 2007-05-16 01:42:22
Message-ID: d51c18ed0705151842k17bb22ads21073e997b8a09d2@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 5/15/07, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>
> > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > >> They are not stable. The items should point to the archives, which
> are
> > >> supposedly more stable. (I had already fixed one item in PatchStatus
> > >> this morning). Really it would be much nicer to have links using the
> > >> Message-Id but I doubt that's at all doable.
> > >
> > > hrm - I see so is there a particular reason for that behaviour ?
> >
> > They're stable until Bruce removes something from the queue. When
> > something is removed, it's renumbered.
> >
> > It's how mhonarc works. It's the same with the archives - if we delete a
> > mail, they get renumbered. So we never should delete, we should just
> > blank out, but it has happened a couple of times.
>
> As I proposed for many times, why don't we add message number to each
> subject line in mail? For example like this:
>
> [HACKERS: 12345] Re: Not ready for 8.3
>
> This way, we could always obtain stable (logical) pointer, without
> reling on particular archival infrastructure.

This sounds like a good idea to me - though I'm just a lurker on the list.

Nathan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-05-16 01:46:34 Re: [PATCHES] Reviewers Guide to Deferred Transactions/TransactionGuarantee
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-05-16 01:25:09 Re: [PATCHES] Reviewers Guide to DeferredTransactions/TransactionGuarantee