> On Aug 24, 2018, at 12:53 PM, Christophe JAILLET
> <[email protected]> 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.
