[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug 62318] healthcheck



> On Aug 24, 2018, at 12:53 PM, Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I've only found it in mod_proxy_balancer and, IIUC, the meaning is "slightly" different from its use in hcheck! :)
> Looks like this 'updated' field was dedicated for recording the time a worker has been added.
> 
> So, my understanding is that, either:
>    - hcheck already changed the meaning of this field, and broke the API when it has been introduced.
> or
>   - the API only says that 'updated' is "timestamp of last update", without telling which kind of update! So why couldn't be used by hcheck to keep record of the "timestamp of last update"... of its check?

It's the latter... recall that health check workers are totally different and separate from real workers.

> 
> I still think that moving when s->updated is updated (sic!) in hcheck should be OK, and wouldn't be an API breakage for me.
> I don't thing that it can interfere in any way with mod_proxy_balancer, at least with the actual code.
> And we should clarify what is the use of thee fields to avoid someelse to 'steal' them.

Let's stop w/ the idea that the API is broken or stolen :)

But yeah, doing the update = now when started/queued makes sense,
assuming that we understand the issue.