On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <p...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> commit cbe804760d78b917fbbb8a1d69b2236a2d98a028
> Author: Poul-Henning Kamp <p...@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
