Cache question

[Peter Booth]

Sure is. Look at the stale-if-error stale-while-revalidate proxy_cache_use_stale proxy_cache_lock etc

Can you describe the use case a bit more? Why don't you want to cache this particular content?
Is it that its dynamic and a fresher version is always preferable but the stale is good enough in 
the event of an error? Or is there more to it than that? 

Sometimes people build sites that are “more dynamic” than they need to because they didn't 
consider a static site that gets frequently periodically regenerated.

Peter

> On 28 Jun 2018, at 9:27 AM, Friscia, Michael <michael.friscia at yale.edu> wrote:
> 
> I’m working through use cases for cache in a presentation and had a thought jump into my head. We have a server block where most things are cached, but a few locations are set not to use the cache. But the thought is that even thought we don’t want to use a local cache and always fetch from upstream, is it possible to still keep a cache copy that could then be served if the upstream host sends anything other than a 200 response?
>  
> ___________________________________________
> Michael Friscia
> Office of Communications
> Yale School of Medicine
> (203) 737-7932 - office
> (203) 931-5381 - mobile
> http://web.yale.edu <http://web.yale.edu/>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> nginx mailing list
> nginx at nginx.org <mailto:nginx at nginx.org>
> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx <http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx/attachments/20180628/b5450a21/attachment-0001.html>