On 06/13/2009 03:49:07 PM, Paolo Lucente wrote:
Hi Chris,
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:07:01PM -0500, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>> We are only interested in a single table.
>
> Why can't two separate sql plugins write to the same table?
What Karl is proposing here might really result in a simpler
approach compared to the sub-aggregation scenario - which, with
some care (ie. sql_startup_delay to svoid events syncronization
while retaining same sql_history and sql_refresh_time settings),
can not only achieve same results but best of all is already
there. Let us know your thoughts!
A good database should not have problems with simultaneous updates,
or is there another reason why synchronization is an issue?
If database keys are a problem that should be easily dealt
with by adding another (optional) config parameter to specify
a unique part of a key. (Although good database design says
that you don't put meaningful information into a key, which
makes the key issue moot but would still require another
database column to track the source (plugid "id") of the
data.)
Karl <k...@meme.com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
_______________________________________________
pmacct-discussion mailing list
http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists
