bug with X-Accel-Expires 0 ?

[Igor Sysoev]

On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 08:07:18AM +0200, Jérôme Loyet wrote:

> 2010/7/1 Maxim Dounin <mdounin at mdounin.ru>:
> > Hello!
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 05:21:26PM +0200, Jérôme Loyet wrote:
> >
> >> Igor, maxim,
> >>
> >> did you have time to look at this bug ?
> >
> > Not really, but I tend to like your aproach.  If we are going to
> > preserve specific hide headers for cached replies it should be
> > configurable separately.  Another possible improvement is to
> > trigger this hiding only when serving reply from cache (but not
> > in initial reply, as 'Cache-Control: no-cache="header-name"'
> > should do per RFC 2616).
> >
> > On the other hand, we've recently discussed related issue in
> > Russian mailing list:
> >
> > http://nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-ru/2010-June/034987.html
> >
> > Consensus seems to be that answers with Set-Cookie should be
> > considered non-cacheable by default.  And probably all these
> > cache-specific hiding stuff will just go away.
> 
> If it's the case Set-Cookie will be handle like "X-Accel-Redirect",
> "X-Accel-Expires", "Expires" or "Cache-Control" and it'll be possible
> to allow to cache responses with Set-Cookie by adding "Set-Cookie" to
> "proxy_ignore_headers". Am I right ?

Yes.

However, I still did not investigate will it require special handling
"Set-Cookie" in cached responses how you suggested before.

> I'm sorry to ask confirmation but the google translation of the
> russian mailing list is not that clear :)

Yes, the translation is far from perfect.


-- 
Igor Sysoev
http://sysoev.ru/en/