Erik Jones <erik@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 11:55 AM, Lewis Cunningham wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> I don't agree in the least, I was actually going to suggest we add a
>>> new one for relational design questions. I like many lists that are
>>> contextually specific. IMO, general should be removed for example.
>>
>> I'd like to have many lists also. There are so many messages in
>> general that I have a hard time keeping up. I would like to be able
>> to just pick and choose those topics that interest me. Having one
>> for design, one for PL programming, one for SQL, etc would be great.
>> Sign up for those that interest you and ignore the rest.
> The sole argument I'd have against that, and I think it's a good one,
> is that just seeing the plethora of different topics moving through
> pgsql-general has been a key factor to exposing me to new topics as
> well as having already seen the solutions to issues well before I've
> encountered them.
Whether you like narrow lists or not, removing -general would certainly
be complete folly. There's always a need for an "other" list. If you
try to get away without it, you'll just end up with off-topic questions
being asked on some random one of the narrow-topic lists.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
