Hello! On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 01:05:08PM -0700, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
> it seems that the proxy_cache_lock directive operates only for cache > misses (new content). while this behavior is documented, i am curious > about the reasoning behind it. there are scenarios where > proxy_cache_lock could be very beneficial for content revalidation. > what are the community's thoughts on this? The generic idea is that "proxy_cache_use_stale updating;" is a better option for existing cache items. As such, current implementation of proxy_cache_lock doesn't try to handle existing cache items to reduce complexity. Just in case, at least one previous attempt to extend proxy_cache_lock to work with existing cache items can be found here: https://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-devel/2018-December/011710.html -- Maxim Dounin http://mdounin.ru/
