Re: Proposal: modify stat socket command feedback

2017-08-21 Thread Andjelko Iharos
Bumping up this thread for comments or merging. On 07/21/2017 04:49 PM, Andjelko Iharos wrote: > On 07/03/2017 01:46 PM, Andjelko Iharos wrote: >> On 07/02/2017 09:52 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: >>> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 01:37:52AM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > This could either be

Re: Proposal: modify stat socket command feedback

2017-07-21 Thread Andjelko Iharos
On 07/03/2017 01:46 PM, Andjelko Iharos wrote: > On 07/02/2017 09:52 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 01:37:52AM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >>> This could either be introduced only in the current development version >>> because of the compatibility breakage or a

Re: Proposal: modify stat socket command feedback

2017-07-03 Thread Andjelko Iharos
On 07/02/2017 09:52 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Dennis, > > On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 01:37:52AM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >> I had to deal with this issue recently as well but I'd rather like to >> see a more explicit and well defined response in all cases rather than >> the workaround

Re: Proposal: modify stat socket command feedback

2017-07-02 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Dennis, On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 01:37:52AM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > I had to deal with this issue recently as well but I'd rather like to > see a more explicit and well defined response in all cases rather than > the workaround proposed above. > Its not clear why a warning should

Re: Proposal: modify stat socket command feedback

2017-06-30 Thread Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
On 30.06.2017 13:43, Andjelko Iharos wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to propose for discussion an improvement to the feedback > delivered by HAProxy over the stats socket. > > Currently the feedback of stats socket commands is inconsistent and it > can be difficult for external tools issuing