hello, > > 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.
right. there are instances where serving outdated content is not permissible, yet overwhelming the upstream servers with a flood of requests is highly undesirable. this situation occurs quite frequently. > 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 thank you! it seems the original post mentioned this exact issue. it also seems that the patch was removed. i am curious if it would be possible to restore the patch. thanks, max
