Re: [RFC] Revert/extend/postpone original RFC about read_only, lazy_write sessions

From: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:17:24 +0000
Subject: Re: [RFC] Revert/extend/postpone original RFC about read_only, lazy_write sessions
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message
Hi,

>> >> > How about making it a INI option? It makes session_start() option
>> >> > handling
>> >> > code
>> >> > a little simpler. It's not mandatory, though.
>> >>
>> >> +1 from me, if it is to be kept as an option.
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm about to modify patch to make it INI. No objections for this?
>>
>> Well, I said 'if' we keep it as an option at all. I'd rather update
>> the RFC to propose it as non-optional behavior since there are no
>> downsides from it, as I understand.
>
>
> How should we handle this?
> It was session_start() option e.g. session_start(['lazy_write'=>true]);
> We are proposing make it INI option.
>
> Since session_start() accepts all INI options, so it can work as
> session_start(['lazy_write'=>true]);
> with INI.
>
> Anyone?

I'll rephrase ... I'm proposing lazy_write at all times, no option.
Optional performance improvements don't make sense to me.

> Please refer to code for details.
>
> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/628/

Wooow, that includes way more additions than those related to the
session-lock-ini RFC. Does it have to be all in one patch?

I'll comment further on github to avoid more spam here.

Cheers,
Andrey.


Thread (34 messages)

« previous php.internals (#73282) next »