| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL WWW <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Schedule for migration to pglister |
| Date: | 2017-11-06 15:46:24 |
| Message-ID: | 24353.1509983184@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I suggest doing that the other way 'round. Otherwise, the email
>> about the change will inevitably go into a lot of peoples' bit
>> buckets if they haven't adjusted their mail filters yet.
> The argument for doing it after the migration is that the complaints that
> we have received so far have all been from people where email ends up in
> the *inbox* after the migration, not the bitbucket. That's the default
> action in most peoples MUAs when their rules no longer match...
Hm, around here it's no match -> spam bucket. But in any case, why
would you not want to send it before so that it would end up where
they're accustomed to seeing the list's traffic?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-11-06 15:47:22 | Re: [POC] Faster processing at Gather node |
| Previous Message | Jim Van Fleet | 2017-11-06 15:44:24 | Re: [POC] Faster processing at Gather node |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2017-11-06 15:51:45 | Re: [HACKERS] Schedule for migration to pglister |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-11-06 15:43:15 | Re: Schedule for migration to pglister |