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

Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Matteo Beccati <php(at)beccati(dot)com>
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 14:16:44
Message-ID: 9837222c1002010616t15ce8eds39a1b1851c3a4eee@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-www
2010/2/1 Matteo Beccati <php(at)beccati(dot)com>:
> 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.

That is a very common scenario. And even without that, email taking
different time to get delivered to majordomo is not at all uncomoon.


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

No rush.

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2010-02-01 14:33:11
Subject: Re: Versions RSS page is missing version(s)
Previous:From: Matteo BeccatiDate: 2010-02-01 14:10:14
Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2010-02-01 14:45:32
Subject: Re: Deadlock in vacuum (check fails)
Previous:From: Matteo BeccatiDate: 2010-02-01 14:10:14
Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches

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