https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49113
--- Comment #17 from [email protected] 2010-04-14 06:05:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Does the following patch fix your issue? > > Index: modules/cache/mod_cache.c > =================================================================== > --- modules/cache/mod_cache.c (revision 933687) > +++ modules/cache/mod_cache.c (working copy) > @@ -473,7 +473,8 @@ > * We include 304 Not Modified here too as this is the origin server > * telling us to serve the cached copy. > */ > - if (exps != NULL || cc_out != NULL) { > + if ((exps != NULL || cc_out != NULL) > + && r->status != HTTP_PARTIAL_CONTENT) { > /* We are also allowed to cache any response given that it has a > * valid Expires or Cache Control header. If we find a either of > * those here, we pass request through the rest of the tests. > From > @@ -486,6 +487,9 @@ > * include the following: an Expires header (section 14.21); a > * "max-age", "s-maxage", "must-revalidate", "proxy-revalidate", > * "public" or "private" cache-control directive (section 14.9). > + * > + * But do NOT store 206 responses in any case since we > + * don't (yet) cache partial responses. > */ > } > else { I have made these changes, and at first testing, they appear to have resolved the issue. Not only that, but the entire PDF (approx 480k) is cached despite it being requested by byterange. Is this a regression issue from 2.2.12 onwards, or was the caching of partial_content requests purposefully allowed as desirable functionality? -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
