Patrick Ben Koetter:
> * Wietse Venema <postfix-users@postfix.org>:
> > Wietse Venema:
> > > Mueller, Martin (Messaging):
> > > > Thanks for all the work making memcache support available, any
> > > > thoughts on the potential use of this for anvil?
> > >
> > > As documented, anvil blocks a client that overwhelms the server.
> > > For that, there is no need to maintain state over more than a few
> > > minutes. The program can be kept small and stupid, and it is not
> > > the end of the world when it loses state after "postfix reload".
> >
> > Perhaps a better question would be "using memcache instead of anvil",
> > and using the same mechanism for other Postfix daemons to dump some
> > counters. That would use a different interface than (lookup, update,
> > delete and first/next), more something like (increment, decrement,
> > or reset).
>
> At the risk of getting flamed: Use it for SNMP?
As long as the memcache is write-mostly from the Postfix point of
view, I do not care much what happens with those counters.
Information flow towards Postfix is a different matter, though. It
would be a mistake to use memcache as a general Postfix configuration
tool. It's a world-writable ramdisk, after all; by design the
unprivileged postfix account (or any other unprivileged account)
must not be allowed to affect the operation of root-privileged
programs such as master, local, pipe, spawn or virtual.
Wietse
