On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 18:28, Aaron Stone wrote: > ""Wolfram A. Kraushaar"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Hans Kristian Rosbach wrote: > > > >>I would appreciate the following options: > >>-Log to database or syslog > >>-Option to buffer logging to database (and syslog?) > >> This enables us to take advantage of transactions support aswell. > >>-Possibility to specify some other host and database for logging > >> This is very good for heavily loaded mail systems. > >>-Max log age parameter (cleanup util does the deletions at night) > >>-Max log size in records/size (cleanup util does the deletions at night) > >> > >> > > Most of that could be done with msyslog right now, without > > touching the code at all. > > > I think it is best to be as dumb about this as possible. If syslog and its > workalikes can be leveraged to do the dirty work, then why should we also > get our hands dirty? > > Aaron
If it can, then that's great. But does it scale better, and is there a pgsql variant? No use if it is as slow as syslogd. -HK
