Re: [PR] BUILD: solaris: fix compilation errors

2024-03-09 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:23:02AM +, PR Bot wrote: > Dear list! > > Author: matthias sweertvaegher <178714+mx...@users.noreply.github.com> > Number of patches: 1 > > This is an automated relay of the Github pull request: >BUILD: solaris: fix compilation errors Now merged, thank you Matt

Re: [PATCH] MINOR: lb-chash: Respect maxconn when selecting a server

2024-03-09 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Anthony, it seems I forgot about this thread, being sidetracked on other stuff... On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 04:41:04PM -0500, Anthony Deschamps wrote: > Hi Willy, > > I wonder if I could accomplish what I'm looking to do by changing the > behaviour of "maxqueue" (without making a breaking chang

Re: [PATCH] MEDIUM: lb-chash: Deterministic node hashes based on server address

2024-03-09 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Anthony, On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:49:45AM -0500, Anthony Deschamps wrote: > Hi Willy, thanks for the thoughtful feedback. > > Here's a new patch that makes this configurable via a "hash-key" server > argument, which defaults to "id" as you suggested. Thanks. > I'm struggling to test the la

[ANNOUNCE] haproxy-3.0-dev5

2024-03-09 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi, HAProxy 3.0-dev5 was released on 2024/03/09. It added 58 new commits after version 3.0-dev4. Again mostly fixes for recent regressions dominate this version (ocsp crashes, zero-copy forwarding) and for older bugs (locking issues in Lua, QUIC freezes during handshake, initial settings for "add

Re: [RFC] Allow disabling abstract unix socket paths NUL-padding

2024-03-09 Thread Tristan
Hi Willy, On 08/03/2024 18:01, Willy Tarreau wrote: The problem with default values is that a single behavior cannot be deduced from reading a single config statement. That's quite painful for lots of people (including those who copy config blocks from stackoverflow), and for API tools. And it w

Re: [RFC] Allow disabling abstract unix socket paths NUL-padding

2024-03-09 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Tristan, On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 04:20:21PM +, Tristan wrote: > To be honest, I don't think this is unfixable. It's just a matter of how > much code change we think is acceptable for it. I don't mind about the amount of changes. "we've always done it like this" is never a valid excuse to k

Re: [RFC] Allow disabling abstract unix socket paths NUL-padding

2024-03-09 Thread Tristan
Hi Willy, On 09/03/2024 16:51, Willy Tarreau wrote: Hi Tristan, On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 04:20:21PM +, Tristan wrote: To be honest, I don't think this is unfixable. It's just a matter of how much code change we think is acceptable for it. I don't mind about the amount of changes. "we've a

Re: [RFC] Allow disabling abstract unix socket paths NUL-padding

2024-03-09 Thread Tristan
On 09/03/2024 18:09, Tristan wrote: Hi Willy, On 09/03/2024 16:51, Willy Tarreau wrote: Hi Tristan, On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 04:20:21PM +, Tristan wrote: To be honest, I don't think this is unfixable. It's just a matter of how much code change we think is acceptable for it. I don't mi