| From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
| Date: | 2009-01-12 20:35:03 |
| Message-ID: | 496BA977.8030307@kaltenbrunner.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>> Two things to fix this, and several other problems:
>
>> 1. Remove the messages size limits on -hackers. They serve no useful
>> purpose, and they interfere with our development process.
>
> Agreed, or at least boost it up a good bit more.
the question really is how much "a bit more" is - right now the limit is
100000 characters which limits us to ~70KB of attachments (around the
size of the Hot-standby patch if bzip2 compressed).
The SE-Postgres patch for example is ~650KB uncompressed - if we want to
cope with uncompressed patches that large we would have to increase
the current limit by a factor of 10 at least.
I wonder if there are people on the list that might not want to receive
mails that large(like users with mobile phones)?
Stefan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-01-12 20:38:51 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2009-01-12 20:29:44 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |