"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> "Matthew T. O'connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
>> Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development, I
>> think trying to split them up is awkward at best. Do people really
>> still think that the potential for larger messages is really a problem?
>
> Personally I'd be fine with abandoning -patches and just using -hackers.
> We could try it for awhile, anyway, and go back if it seems worse.

I'm for that.

>> By the way, what is the actual size limit on hackers vs patches.
>
> They do have different size limits; we'd have to raise the limit on
> -hackers if we do this. Marc would know exactly what the limits are.

Note that even the size limit on -patches is too small for some patches.

What I did with previous large patches which were not getting through to
patches was put them up on a web page but with a new filename for each
version. So the URL for a given version *was* stable, the content never
changed. You could check the index page to see if there were more recent
versions.

I would suggest putting large patches up on the wiki in cases like that now,
but isn't there a size limit on the wiki too?

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers