After reading about the patch, it seems that the database is only used for
virtualhost lookups and password/account verification -- it never mentioned
doing any more than that... I've just read over the docs once though, so no
one take my word as law yet.
I'm going to install this later and play with it as I've been looking for a
solution like this for a while (though I'm a postfix user, I'd gladly switch
if this patch works!). I'll see if I can get PG to crash with it and
investigate further..
Just in theory, I don't even trust MySQL to store my usernames and
passwords, I've seen it take a dive too many times to use it for much of
anything... They've released several versions since I last used it but it
was a lot less stable for me than older 6.X versions of PG when the load got
a little high...
If the patch just does a few simple queries, I'd think something along the
lines of mSQL might be nice (though I've never used it, I've heard some nice
things about it for tiny databases).. PG's feature set is grossly underused
for applications like this... If I do use it I'll probably install another
copy of PG and turn down the sort mem and such to get a little better
scalability -- spawning a new PG process every time someone checks their
mail is going to cost me dearly with the way my PG is setup now..
Well, we'll see how it goes.
-Mitch
> > As said, "simple read-only" is not really something you want
> > a full featured RDBMS for. Maybe you are better off with a
> > simple and stupid system on the feature level of gdbm or
> > MySql.
> >
> > Jan
>
> I'd agree with this on the query-level functionality... but...
>
> Michael, does Qmail-SQL *store* the email in the database? (haven't
> checked)
>
> If so, there's no way I'd want new customer inquiries or other
> *important* email stored in a system which didn't know how to fully
> recover if the server crashes.
>
> Imagine... 200,000 customer emails in a busy MySQL 3.23.x database, and
> the UPS power cuts off.
