Re: Problem with moderation of messages with patched attached.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 at 13:52, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

>
> On 3/19/22 14:48, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2022-03-03 13:37:35 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> >> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:28, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different
> moderation
> >>>> rules for people in that way I'm afraid.
> >>>>
> >>> Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's not so convenient. Lead to
> >>> answers before the questions in the thread [1], seems weird.
> >>>
> >> Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are
> messages
> >> legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually
> moderate
> >> -hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.
> > I don't think it's actually that rare. But most contributors writing that
> > large patchsets know about the limit and work around it - I gzip patches
> when
> > I see the email getting too large. But it's more annoying to work with
> for
> > reviewers.
> >
> > It's somewhat annoying. If you e.g. append a few graphs of performance
> changes
> > and a patch it's pretty easy to get into the range where compressing
> won't
> > help anymore.
> >
> > And sure, any limit may be hit by somebody. But 1MB across the whole
> email
> > seems pretty low these days.
> >
>
> Of course we could get complaints no matter what level we set the limit
> at. I think raising it to 2Mb would be a reasonable experiment. If no
> observable evil ensues then leave it that way. If it does then roll it
> back. I agree that plain uncompressed patches are easier to deal with in
> general.
>

Thanks for the reminder :-)

I've bumped the limit to 2MB.

--
Dave Page
Blog: https://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com