David, I reconsidered your point and am currently having a more in-depth look. Maybe something is indeed fishy... Just for everyone's info. Will post more when I know more ;-)
Rainer El vie, 17 sept 2021 a las 11:21, Rainer Gerhards (<[email protected]>) escribió: > > > the issue is that throughout the documentation, we say that not specifying a > > queue is the same as specifying a queue type of direct. In this case, it's > > not. > > no, no! > > All is right, except that the "call" statement calling a ruleset async > even when only a queue type direct is set. > > Behaviour of queues is as it always was, and direct does not de-couple. > > It is "call" which is executed on a different thread when we detect > queue parameters on a ruleset. Anything else is correct. This can be > clarified here: > > https://www.rsyslog.com/doc/master/rainerscript/rainerscript_call.html > > but nowhere else! > > Tech details: if call detects a queue on the ruleset, it posts the > message to that queue. Otherwise, it runs the ruleset as a subroutine > (links directly to the rulesets AST). This ensures synchronicity even > when running on multiple threads. > > Rainer _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list https://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.
