Changed varnishreload to send commands to varnishadm as a batch #170
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thank you for your contribution, but for several reasons, some of them mentioned in #168 I'm ruling out this approach for now. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This fixes #168, but comes with some trade-offs:
We can no longer decorate the output of
varnishadmwith our own. This is unavoidable as far as I know, with the limitations of Bash.I even tried assigning STDOUT to FD3 and sending our decorations using
>&3 echoinvocations, but this causes all our decorations to either appear before all output emitted byvarnishadm, or after, depending on the specific semantics used, but there is no way to interlace our output with that ofvarnishadmin the intuitive manner we expect (as previously).Due to a bug in
varnishadm, output cannot be suppressed when the commands are successful since any commands so sent via STDIN will always causevarnishadmto exit with 0 (success) status. See:varnishadmalways returns 0 (success) when commands sent via STDIN varnish-cache#4012.