Hello -
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
Hi again Andrew,
I've spent some time on it. Good work. I'm seeing a bug in %HV, it doesn't
always work. I like your idea to convert missing versions to HTTP/1.0,
but I think that in order to be even more accurate, we
Hi again Andrew,
I've spent some time on it. Good work. I'm seeing a bug in %HV, it doesn't
always work. I like your idea to convert missing versions to HTTP/1.0,
but I think that in order to be even more accurate, we should report
HTTP/0.9 to translate what was actually seen in the logs, what do
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:54:58AM -0500, Andrew Hayworth wrote:
(...)
I changed %HR - %HU, and mentioned '(path)' in the docs.
I found it was not changed in the parser nor the doc but I fixed it, don't
worry.
Now concerning the bug, it's not very important but it does exist :
Thanks!
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:54:58AM -0500, Andrew Hayworth wrote:
(...)
I changed %HR - %HU, and mentioned '(path)' in the docs.
I found it was not changed in the parser nor the doc but I fixed it, don't
Hi Willy -
Sorry about the delay. I had to work on some other projects, and just
got back to this.
As usual, thank you for the feedback on the commit.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 4:12 AM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
- it did not apply to mainline, I had to apply it by hand, so I suspect
Hi Andrew,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:49:36PM -0500, Andrew Hayworth wrote:
Hi Willy -
Sorry about the delay. I had to work on some other projects, and just
got back to this.
Oh don't worry, I know this situation too well!
(...)
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 4:12 AM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 02:33:25PM -0500, Andrew Hayworth wrote:
I've attached another patch that implements
4 separate log variables to log individual parts of the request line,
as you suggested.
Great, thanks. I'm having a few comments about the patch :
- it did not apply to
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 08:55:20AM -0500, Andrew Hayworth wrote:
Hi Willy -
Apologies if this comes through multiple times; I'm having some mail
difficulties.
I received it only once FYI.
When I attempt to use %[path] in a log-format directive, I get the
following errors:
Hi Willy -
Apologies if this comes through multiple times; I'm having some mail
difficulties.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
Just a question, did you find any benefit in doing it with a new tag
compared to %[path] ? It may just be a matter of convenience, I'm
It's often undesirable to log query params - and in some cases, it can
create legal compliance problems. This commit adds a new log format
variable that logs the HTTP verb and the path requested sans query
string (and additionally ommitting the protocol). For example, the
following HTTP request
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 04:52:38PM -0500, Andrew Hayworth wrote:
It's often undesirable to log query params - and in some cases, it can
create legal compliance problems. This commit adds a new log format
variable that logs the HTTP verb and the path requested sans query
string (and
11 matches
Mail list logo
