| From: | tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de |
|---|---|
| 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 07:43:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20070516074302.GB1647@www.trapp.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 10:16:43AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > >> They are not stable. [...]
> 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
What I don't understand is why mailing list software doesn't use message
ID as primary index. Granted, it's ugly, but it is globally stable (and
hopefully unique) _across all mailboxes_
Sorry for the random rant
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGSrYGBcgs9XrR2kYRAlY2AJ9Vq5JZZEqX/y/DkN/HJ4Wg47RMyQCfbdgh
Z6KnR4eJHh/oDHr7GI/OiPU=
=Nxev
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2007-05-16 07:58:44 | Re: Not ready for 8.3 |
| Previous Message | Michael Raven | 2007-05-16 07:15:01 | Re: pg_comparator table diff/sync |