When I move force-persist to the backend, it indeed works.
From some other post I understand it's only possible to bypass the maintenance
mode where stickiness is used?
Best regards,
Pieter Vogelaar
Op 02-03-18 06:32 heeft Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> geschreven:
Hi Cyril,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 08:50:55PM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote:
> Well, I think your issue will be resolved by moving "force-persist" on the
> backend side instead of the frontend one.
>
> The issue seems to exist from the first day of "force-persist", where the
> code and the documentation don't agree about the sections where it can be
> used.
>
> From the documentation and the config parser, it can be used in a
frontend,
> but the code only loop on the s->be to evaluate the
> persistence options.
I think you are totally right. At first this caught my eye, but I looked
at the doc, and found that it was apparently supported in the frontend,
which surprised me. Then a quick look at the code told me that we were
setting SF_FORCE_PRST regardless of the frontend or backend. But after
your comment I looked closer and noticed that the place where it's done
is when processing the content switching rules, so by definition it can
only be done on the backend.
>
> See commit
http://git.haproxy.org/?p=haproxy.git;a=commit;h=4de9149f876cc0c63495b71a2c7a3aefc722c9c0
> for details.
>
> The same issue was also introduced with "ignore-persist".
You're right, both are set in the same loop. Usually I prefer to adapt
the code to make it match the doc, but here I don't see a reasonable
way to do it, so I think we'll instead update the code to emit a warning
and update the doc. Any objection ?
Thanks,
Willy
