Horton
Menu

Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@toroid.org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Tim Bunce <Tim.Bunce@pobox.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-02-01T16:28:15Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com> writes:
> My main concern is that we'd need to overcomplicate the thread detection 
> algorithm so that it better deals with delayed messages: as it currently 
> works, the replies to a missing message get linked to the 
> "grand-parent". Injecting the missing message afterwards will put it at 
> the same level as its replies. If it happens only once in a while I 
> guess we can live with it, but definitely not if it happens tens of 
> times a day.

That's quite common unfortunately --- I think you're going to need to
deal with the case.  Even getting a direct feed from the mail relays
wouldn't avoid it completely: consider cases like

	* A sends a message
	* B replies, cc'ing A and the list
	* B's reply to list is delayed by greylisting
	* A replies to B's reply (cc'ing list)
	* A's reply goes through immediately
	* B's reply shows up a bit later

That happens pretty frequently IME.

			regards, tom lane