Hello! On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:24:49PM +0300, Gena Makhomed wrote:
> # HG changeset patch > # User Gena Makhomed <g...@csdoc.com> > # Date 1537528104 -10800 > # Fri Sep 21 14:08:24 2018 +0300 > # Node ID a7533f3f3138fe5524a0f14293da4149e65b1402 > # Parent 87d2ea860f380dc8418c97c0163412f53c2d008e > Allow 1xx 2xx 3xx 4xx 5xx codes in xxxxx_cache_valid directives. > > For example, config fragment > > fastcgi_cache_valid 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 226 5m; > fastcgi_cache_valid 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 10m; > > now can be rewritten as > > fastcgi_cache_valid 2xx 5m; > fastcgi_cache_valid 3xx 10m; I cannot say I like this change. Cacheability of various response codes vary widely, and caching then "in bulk" in most cases is a bad idea. In particular, caching of 201 is always wrong as it is only expected to be returned to non-cacheable POST and PUT requests. Caching 206 is wrong unless you use "Ranges" in the cache key. And caching 304 is wrong unless you've laso included If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match headers in the cache key. As such, I would rather refrain from introducing these shortcuts, as they looks rather dangerous for the unwary. -- Maxim Dounin http://mdounin.ru/ _______________________________________________ nginx-devel mailing list nginx-devel@nginx.org http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
