On 01/02/2010 15:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
2010/2/1 Matteo Beccati<p...@beccati.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/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
