Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches

From: Matteo Beccati <php(at)beccati(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches
Date: 2010-02-01 14:10:14
Message-ID: 4B66E0C6.5050109@beccati.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-www
On 01/02/2010 15:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 2010/2/1 Matteo Beccati<php(at)beccati(dot)com>:
>> 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 can potentially be a problem.
>
> Consider the case where message A it sent. Mesasge B is a response to
> A, and message C is a response to B. Now assume B is held for
> moderation (because the poser is not on the list, or because it trips
> some other thing), then message C will definitely arrive before
> message B. Is that going to cause problems with this method?
>
> Another case where the same thing will happen is if message delivery
> of B gets for example graylisted, or is just slow from sender B, but
> gets quickly delivered to the author of message A (because of a direct
> CC). In this case, the author of message A may respond to it (making
> message D),and this will again arrive before message B because author
> A is not graylisted.
>
> So the system definitely needs to deal with out-of-order delivery.

Hmm, it looks like I didn't factor in direct CCs when thinking about 
potential problems with the simplified algorithm. Thanks for raising that.

I'll be out of town for a few days, but I will see what I can do when I 
get back.


Cheers
-- 
Matteo Beccati

Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-02-01 14:16:44
Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-02-01 14:03:52
Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-02-01 14:16:44
Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-02-01 14:03:52
Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group