Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

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

Cc: Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com>, 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: 2010-02-01T16:31:21Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

Yeah - and sometimes the delay can be DAYS.

...Robert