Here's about as final as we're going to get it for now: http://dpaste.com/hold/13884/
On Jul 5, 4:07 pm, "Jeremy Dunck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/5/07, Honza Král <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We haven't tested it for performance (we are building a high-volume > > site) yet and we still haven't figured out how to deal with multiple > > web servers connecting to one cache (our working version includes > > propagating the post_save signal via some asynchronous communication > > channel like apache's ActiveMQ, but we might end up with a separate > > server just for the cache invalidation). > > FWIW, on the memcached list right now, they're writing agenda for an > upcoming hackathon. > > Regex-based key purging is on the drawing board. That sounds nuts, > but Brad is a genius. The proposed approach is to have any mass > delete not actually delete immediately, but increment a generation > counter. Any get on a key with an older generation would then be > tested newer generation delete patterns and matching keys would be > expired at that time. > > You might go see if you could use that and contribute to it if so. > > > Is anybody interested in this? > > Yes indeed. I'm going to be building something fairly high-volume and > low-latency, and am trying to come up with an efficient way of mass > invalidation, too. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
