On 2017/1/27 15:31, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Patrick Hemmer
> <hapr...@stormcloud9.net> wrote:
>> Something that might satisfy both requests, why not just append to the
>> existing request-id?
>>
>> unique-id-format %[req.hdr(X-Request-ID)],%{+X}o\
>> %ci:%cp_%fi:%fp_%Ts_%rt:%pid
>>
>> This does result in a leading comma if X-Request-ID is unset. If that's
>> unpleasant, you could do something like write tiny LUA sample converter to
>> append a comma if the value is not empty.
>
> However, just setting the `unique-id-format` is not enough, as we
> should also send that ID to the backend, thus there is a need of
> `http-request set-header X-Request-Id %[unique-id] if !...`. (By not
> using the `http-request`, we do get the ID from the header in the log,
> but not to the backend.)
That's what the `unique-id-header` config parameter is for.
>
> But now -- I can't say with certainty, but I remember trying various
> variants -- I think the evaluation order of `unique-id-format` is
> after all the `http-request` rules, thus the header will always be
> empty (if not explicitly set in the request), although in the log we
> would have a correct ID.
>
>
> (This is why I settled with a less optimal solution of having two
> headers, but with identical values, and working correctly in all
> instances.)
>
> Ciprian.
>
