It sounds like this is a broad-based principle about DMQ compatibility that is generalised beyond any specific module. Are you looking for an alternate set of rules that specially apply to only one module and not to any other module, or are you looking for a “de facto” exception that cannot be endorsed in principle?
— Sent from mobile, with due apologies for brevity and errors. > On Mar 18, 2022, at 11:52 AM, Ben Kaufman <bkauf...@bcmone.com> wrote: > > > Daniel, > > In a recent thread you stated the following regarding DMQ compatibility > between versions: > “if you do dmq replication between kamailio systems running different major > versions, then it is likely to get memory leaks due to replication of data > and most probably cannot be fixed. This is because internal structures of > modules (also dmq commands) can change, practically what an instance does is > not ensured to happen on the other instance. Just for example, from my mind, > htable got some changes during past releases, dmq also has significant > enhancements by getting support for more transport protocols.” > > Is it possible to get a bit more clarification on this, particularly as it > relates to DMQ_USRLOC? I’m hoping to do rolling updates, but don’t want to > end up in a situation where I’ve caused myself more problems than I’ve solved. > > > Ben Kaufman > __________________________________________________________ > Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions > * sr-users@lists.kamailio.org > Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the > sender! > Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe: > * https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
__________________________________________________________ Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions * sr-users@lists.kamailio.org Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender! Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe: * https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
