Hello! On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 06:35:52PM +0300, Gena Makhomed wrote:
> On 21.09.2018 15:58, Maxim Dounin wrote: > > >> 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. > > Ok, thank you for detailed explanation. > > What about adding 307 and 308 to list of default response codes? I'm not a fan of the "proxy_cache_valid 5m" form for the very same reasons, and would rather avoid changing it. -- Maxim Dounin http://mdounin.ru/ _______________________________________________ nginx-devel mailing list nginx-devel@nginx.org http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
