Yes, we would strongly prefer at-least-once semantics. If everyone agrees that it's desired behavior for rsyslog I'll try to contribute something in that direction.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:38 AM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Kane Kim wrote: > > According to documentation ( >> >> http://www.rsyslog.com/doc/v8-stable/development/dev_oplugins.html#batching-of-messages >> ) >> rsyslog's behavior with batch api output plugins should be at-least-once. >> Right now it's at-most-once. >> >> What's the preferred approach, fix rsyslog to provide at-least-once >> guarantees or fix documentation so it mentions that rsyslog doesn't >> provide >> it? >> > > I think it should be at least once. It's a lot easier to weed out > duplicates than to notice that something is missing. > > David Lang > _______________________________________________ > 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.
