On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
Yeah - and sometimes the delay can be DAYS. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
