Mailing List Archive: Re: [master] cbe8047 Reintroduce hit-for-pass with new and better syntax:

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> commit cbe804760d78b917fbbb8a1d69b2236a2d98a028
> Author: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@FreeBSD.org>
> Date: Wed Feb 22 10:40:58 2017 +0000
>
> Reintroduce hit-for-pass with new and better syntax:
>
> sub vcl_backend_response {
> return (pass(2s));
> }

We need to clear the confusion of turning hitpass into a hitmiss in
5.0, while keeping the MAIN.cache_hitpass counter as is. Especially
now that hitpass lives alongside hitmiss.

Also, should the built-in VCL make a distinction between hitmiss and
hitpass? For example if the response contains a Set-Cookie header it
might be a one-time thing and hitmiss would be preferred, otherwise it
looks like something reliably not cacheable: so hitpass.

Thoughts?

Cheers

_______________________________________________
varnish-dev mailing list
varnish-dev@varnish-cache.org
https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev

--------
In message <CABoVN9C3z2X38q9yd0RF1DTaq0ybhPg+rZ967G3KS5M_=MCxzQ@mail.gmail.com>, Dridi Boukelmoune writes:

>We need to clear the confusion of turning hitpass into a hitmiss in
>5.0, while keeping the MAIN.cache_hitpass counter as is. Especially
>now that hitpass lives alongside hitmiss.

Yes, there are a number of consequences that we need to attend to.

>Also, should the built-in VCL make a distinction between hitmiss and
>hitpass?

IMO built-in VCL should never use hit-for-pass.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

_______________________________________________
varnish-dev mailing list
varnish-dev@varnish-cache.org
https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev