| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mail thread references in commits |
| Date: | 2016-11-19 10:47:24 |
| Message-ID: | CABUevEz-d58b8oMtTqnVH0GqvQFPBBMT_6L_gdzvn=n-rw1Xig@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Magnus,
>
> * Magnus Hagander (magnus(at)hagander(dot)net) wrote:
> > It would make the URLs actually short, but as mentioned upthread, that
> > wouldn't work at all if offline. So it'd be a tradeoff between those, but
> > so are pretty much all other options that don't include the full
> message-id.
>
> This is a bit of a crazy idea, but in the new list system, couldn't we
> add a header which includes "our" surrogate message-id? Or possibly the
> entire URL to the message, and maybe the URL for the entire thread?
>
I'd rather not tie those systems in that tightly. I think they are much
better off being de-coupled.
That said, what we could do is invent our own "id". We could either use a
separate surrogate key, or we could do the sha-1 hash of the messageid. And
stick that in a header, which could then be searched for both locally and
remotely.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gilles Darold | 2016-11-19 11:58:47 | Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function |
| Previous Message | Man Trieu | 2016-11-19 05:46:47 | How to change order sort of table in HashJoin |