Обсуждение: pgarchives: issue (?) when responding to a message on another list
I've fixed the issue with primary keys listed in another thread [1] and now encounter a strange behaviour when testing: respondingto a message on a different list than the original recipient list saves this message in both lists' archives (itis saved in the database once, but appears on both lists). I'm now wondering if this is expected behaviour or a problemin my fix or install. Given that messages belong to threads (and not lists), which can belong to several lists, I guess this is the intended behaviour. This use case happens for instance when a user responds to a message posted in an *-announce list to a more general list.In such case, it is inappropriate to archive the message in the more restricted *-announce list. I've looked for an example in postgresql archives to see if this happens in the deployment for postgresql but haven't managedto find one as it's pretty rare. [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevExzjRo-=9Hg4CDdnGHuQB1L6uAwekni0mz-1CECaMcGZA@mail.gmail.com -- Célestin Matte
Ping on this as I'd like to know if I should deploy as-is. Is this expected behaviour that responses on list B to a messageoriginally on list A get archived on both lists? On 19/10/2023 19:36, Célestin Matte wrote: > I've fixed the issue with primary keys listed in another thread [1] and now encounter a strange behaviour when testing:responding to a message on a different list than the original recipient list saves this message in both lists' archives(it is saved in the database once, but appears on both lists). I'm now wondering if this is expected behaviour ora problem in my fix or install. > Given that messages belong to threads (and not lists), which can belong to several lists, I guess this is the intendedbehaviour. > > This use case happens for instance when a user responds to a message posted in an *-announce list to a more general list.In such case, it is inappropriate to archive the message in the more restricted *-announce list. > I've looked for an example in postgresql archives to see if this happens in the deployment for postgresql but haven't managedto find one as it's pretty rare. > > [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevExzjRo-=9Hg4CDdnGHuQB1L6uAwekni0mz-1CECaMcGZA@mail.gmail.com -- Célestin Matte
Hi! Apologies - I remember seeing the original one, and I thought I had actually answered it. Yes, this is entirely by design, so your analysis is correct. //Magnus On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 7:23 PM Célestin Matte <celestin.matte@cmatte.me> wrote: > > Ping on this as I'd like to know if I should deploy as-is. Is this expected behaviour that responses on list B to a messageoriginally on list A get archived on both lists? > > On 19/10/2023 19:36, Célestin Matte wrote: > > I've fixed the issue with primary keys listed in another thread [1] and now encounter a strange behaviour when testing:responding to a message on a different list than the original recipient list saves this message in both lists' archives(it is saved in the database once, but appears on both lists). I'm now wondering if this is expected behaviour ora problem in my fix or install. > > Given that messages belong to threads (and not lists), which can belong to several lists, I guess this is the intendedbehaviour. > > > > This use case happens for instance when a user responds to a message posted in an *-announce list to a more general list.In such case, it is inappropriate to archive the message in the more restricted *-announce list. > > I've looked for an example in postgresql archives to see if this happens in the deployment for postgresql but haven'tmanaged to find one as it's pretty rare. > > > > [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevExzjRo-=9Hg4CDdnGHuQB1L6uAwekni0mz-1CECaMcGZA@mail.gmail.com > > -- > Célestin Matte > >