Matteo Beccati <p...@beccati.com> writes:
> 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's quite common unfortunately --- I think you're going to need to
deal with the case. Even getting a direct feed from the mail relays
wouldn't avoid it completely: consider cases like
* A sends a message
* B replies, cc'ing A and the list
* B's reply to list is delayed by greylisting
* A replies to B's reply (cc'ing list)
* A's reply goes through immediately
* B's reply shows up a bit later
That happens pretty frequently IME.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
