On Feb 22, 5:02 pm, dormando <[email protected]> wrote:
> It feels excessive if the only real benefit is being able to do a full > data flush in less time? Is there anything I'm missing? This is kind of how I see it: Pros: * It's consistent with flush_all [n] for positive values of n if you consider flush_all to mean "remove items older than n" * The patch is really small and simple. * This is functionality that can't be performed (exactly) on the client side (would've been a good argument against flush_all n). Cons: * It's inconsistent with flush_all if you think of flush_all as "remove all objects" * Item structure overhead is increased. * Generally raises the "this will be abused" flag As far as not being possible to do without the server change (pro #3), this can be done with a generational prefix mechanism, which I'd expect to be preferable as it would be more exact than time.
