Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> - --On Friday, October 27, 2006 19:05:01 -0300 Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-es-ayuda/2006-10/msg00565.php
> The one you sent me is from ~2 hours after the original post:
> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:12:53 -0300
> The original was:
> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:16:17 -0500
> I hate time zones, but if I'm right, the original was an hour earlier then the
> second one that went through ... so was rejected due to it being a duplicate of
> one that already went through ...
> Of course, that's assuming they are the same one ;)
No, I don't think that's the case, because I get the "POST" message just
after getting the actual message to the list. I tried again, and sent
a test message, which was archived here:
Attached are the POST message and the message I got from the list.
I think the other message did not have matching dates because the
sender's machine doesn't have a sync'ed clock. Mine is NTP'd. (Also
this example is simpler because all times are in -0300).
Maybe you are right that there is a duplicate, but in that case then
it's something inside the postgresql.org mail handling that's causing
duplicates to be received by majordomo, because I *certainly* did not
send the message a second time.
Today I got a whole bunch of POST messages, all corresponding to the
messages I have received.
(BTW the clock at lists.commandprompt.com (which is my outbound SMTP)
appears to be 4 seconds ahead).
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Tomas Vondra||Date: 2006-10-28 18:30:19|
|Subject: Re: pg_autovacuum / pg_class|
|Previous:||From: John DeSoi||Date: 2006-10-28 14:54:51|
|Subject: Re: Swing JTable and ResultSet TableModel (with big resultsets)|