[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       squid-dev
Subject:    Re: httpMaybeRemovePublic and collapsed_forwarding
From:       Henrik Nordstrom <henrik () henriknordstrom ! net>
Date:       2008-06-24 4:00:43
Message-ID: 1214280043.5654.11.camel () henriknordstrom ! net
[Download RAW message or body]


On tis, 2008-06-24 at 10:45 +1000, Benno Rice wrote:

> Can someone fill me in on why this isn't called in the  
> collapsed_forwarding case?  I've got some ideas but I'm not confidant  
> enough in my reading of the code to be sure that I'm right.  Mainly it  
> feels like we're very careful that the StoreEntry in use may not be  
> "right" in someway.  Is there some way I can tell whether it's safe to  
> run httpMaybeRemovePublic in the collapsed case?

The difference in collapsed forwarding is that the object has already
overwritten earlier content early on when using collapsed forwarding, so
in most cases the older content has already been invalidated.

Same thing when ICP peers do not support the query key parameter..

What's missing in this picture is variant invalidation..

Thinking.. I guess the easiest would be to move this logic down to
httpMaybeRemovePublic, for a starter making it not remove the object
itself which is the primary case this test is for..

Regards
Henrik

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]