Hello! On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:39:13PM -0800, Thibault Charbonnier wrote:
> This is a proposal to allow for better granularity (eventually, on a > per-request basis?) regarding the proxy_*_timeout directives. > > Please let me know how you feel about such a feature, and if you think > this patch should be implemented in a different way. I can't say I like the patch as it introduces a lot of code without obvious reasons. Not to mention it only covers proxy, while there are also memcached, fastcgi, scgi, and uwsgi. You may want to provide more details on what problem you are trying to solve. [...] > If a timeout directive contains a variable, we consider such variable to > contain the related timeout in ms precision. Just a side note: this is certainly wrong, it should follow the same rules as normal parsing of the directive. -- Maxim Dounin http://nginx.org/ _______________________________________________ nginx-devel mailing list nginx-devel@nginx.org http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
