| Id | date | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 2008-11-21 10:23:25.0 | ||
| 183361 | 2008-11-21 10:23:25.0 | Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <noway@spam.com> writes: >>> I also was confused by its flatness. I am finding the email traffic >>> almost impossible to continue tracking, so something different is >>> happening, but it seems it is not volume-related. >> Yes, my perception also is that it's getting harder and harder to keep >> up with the list traffic; so something is happening that a simple >> volume count doesn't capture. If measured in "bytes of the gzipped mbox" it looks like there's a *huge* increase of volume on Hackers in the past 3 months - well over twice the historical levels; and maybe 4X 2002-2006. Graphs of this metric can be seen here: http://0ape.com/postgres_mailinglist_size/ In some ways I think compressed mbox sizes are a more fair way of measuring the bandwidth for these lists since it (correctly) counts a large gzipped path as requiring more mental effort than people top-posting brief messages on top of old threads. (Data from commands like HEAD http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/mbox/pgsql-hackers.2008-09.gz | grep Content-Length ) -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-noway@spam.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general |
| 183367 | 2008-11-21 10:26:32.0 | On Thursday 20 November 2008 7:59:31 pm Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <noway@spam.com> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> So, to a first approximation, the PG list traffic has been constant > >> since 2000. Not the result I expected. > > > > I also was confused by its flatness. I am finding the email traffic > > almost impossible to continue tracking, so something different is > > happening, but it seems it is not volume-related. > > Yes, my perception also is that it's getting harder and harder to keep > up with the list traffic; so something is happening that a simple > volume count doesn't capture. I am still relatively new to Postgres, but my impression is that the questions have gotten harder/more in depth. Fewer, How do you pronounce Postgres? and more, Explain the various isolation levels for transactions and how does that affect my particular situation? > > Does anyone have the data to break it down per mailing list? That might > yield some more insight. > > regards, tom lane -- Adrian Klaver noway@spam.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-noway@spam.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general |
| 183369 | 2008-11-21 10:29:38.0 | On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 08:18 -0800, Ron Mayer wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian <noway@spam.com> writes: > >>> I also was confused by its flatness. I am finding the email traffic > >>> almost impossible to continue tracking, so something different is > >>> happening, but it seems it is not volume-related. > >> Yes, my perception also is that it's getting harder and harder to keep > >> up with the list traffic; so something is happening that a simple > >> volume count doesn't capture. > > If measured in "bytes of the gzipped mbox" it looks like there's a > *huge* increase of volume on Hackers in the past 3 months - well > over twice the historical levels; and maybe 4X 2002-2006. Its because we eliminated the -patches mailing list. Joshua D. Drake -- -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-noway@spam.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general |
| 183410 | 2008-11-21 11:13:10.0 | "Joshua D. Drake" <noway@spam.com> writes: > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 08:18 -0800, Ron Mayer wrote: >> If measured in "bytes of the gzipped mbox" it looks like there's a >> *huge* increase of volume on Hackers in the past 3 months - well >> over twice the historical levels; and maybe 4X 2002-2006. > Its because we eliminated the -patches mailing list. Yeah, I think this is most probably explained by repeat postings of successive versions of large patches. Still, Ron might be on to something. I had not considered message lengths in my previous numbers ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-noway@spam.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general |