On 06/13/2009 09:58:17 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Hi Paolo,
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Paolo Lucente wrote:
> Let me spend a couple of words on a different aspect: the above
approach
> implies everything ends in the same SQL table - which can have pros
and
> cons; the pro is simplicity (one table for everything); the con is
that
> might want to have sub-aggregated data clearly separated into a
> different table to, say, apply different policies. This is something
can
> be done today with pmacct as 'sql_preprocess' offers also the "max"
> version of the "min" features you are using. It means having, for
> example, two SQL plugins, writing to different SQL tables,
aggregating
> data differently and using complementary sql_preprocess features (so
> that at the end by summing data in both tables one ends with the
full
> picture). Would this be a feasible approach to you?
We are only interested in a single table.
Why can't two separate sql plugins write to the same table?
Karl <k...@meme.com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
_______________________________________________
pmacct-discussion mailing list
http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists
