| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca |
| Cc: | ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org, 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 11:20:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20070516.202016.95897184.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> * Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> [070515 21:19]:
>
> > 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.
>
> Isn't that what the "Message-Id" field is for?
>
> http://news.gmane.org/find-root(dot)php?message_id=20070516(dot)101643(dot)94564776(dot)t-ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp
> a.
Maybe. However I think "subject-sequence" has some advantages over
Message-Id:
- Easy to identify. Message-Id may not appear on some MUA with default
setting
- More handy than lengthy message Id
- Easy to detect messages not delivered, by knowing that the sequence
number was skipped
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2007-05-16 12:07:06 | Re: Not ready for 8.3 |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2007-05-16 11:03:49 | Re: Not ready for 8.3 |