On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Pavel Levshin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 05.11.2013 18:36, Rainer Gerhards: > > > Yet another thing that I obviously need to prohibit. I don't even know if >> such a small "queue" works at all. If it does, the performance will be >> extremely bad. >> > > Why prohibit anything which can be done on purpose, and will not break the > server? > > Because this again requires code to be maintained for a border case. As I said, I wouldn't wonder if you get a segfault under some configurations where this is set to one (e.g. all watermarks are 0 in this case). > Good software often works fine even in unexpected use cases. Rsyslog is an > example of such software. I'm writing this because you've mentioned > benefits of being more restrictive. Hope you will be wary on this way too. > > I *really* don't see any valid use case for a queue with size 1... What is it? We were just about direct mode. Size 1, assuming it works, is essentially direct mode with a lot of overhead. So use direct in this case. Does that sound like an undue restriction? Rainer > > -- > Pavel Levshin > > > _______________________________________________ > rsyslog mailing list > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ > What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards > NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad > of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you > DON'T LIKE THAT. > _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE THAT.
