I'm actually a bit curious on this myself, and believe some of the development work going on has removed this feature, since it is pretty awkward.
We were discussing it in irc and couldn't find a usage pattern that isn't better off using 'add' with a low timeout. The way it's implemented is a dynamic array loop thing, which isn't exactly ideal anymore. So, anyone using it? I hope you're listening and speak up soon :) We'll make a lot more noise as this feature is .. presently slated for removal I guess. -Dormando Wayne Hineman wrote: > Hi, > As a newbie to memcached, I've been reading carefully the protocol > document and have a question about the optional time value on the > 'delete' command. The document describes very well how it works; > my question is what is the use case for this function? Is it used > widely? I can kind of understand a desire to prevent certain keys > from being stored, but the 'set' command overrides this behavior. > Is it expected that new keys are always 'add'ed and existing keys > always 'replace'd? I might expect that the opposite is true: that > 'set' is used more frequently than add/replace, thus making the > optional time on 'delete' moot. So what's the thought behind this > feature? > > Thanks! > > Wayne > > > >
