No they were deliberately made not cached because otherwise in the event
that some sensitive data got oversighted, they may still keep accessible
from cached data, and there are even no way to have them go away.
On Mar 29, 2014 11:40 AM, "Brian Wolff" <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/28/14, Shawn Jones <sjone(a)cs.odu.edu>
wrote:
Hi,
As part of our extension testing, we've set up varnish in accordance
with
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Varnish_caching
One of the things we've noticed is that our oldid URIs are cached,
whereas Wikipedia doesn't seem to cache those pages.
Is there a reason why Wikipedia doesn't do this? Is there some
threshold that Wikipedia uses for caching?
Thanks in advance,
Shawn M. Jones
Graduate Research Assistant
Department of Computer Science
Old Dominion University
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I think your caching is set up incorrectly. MediaWiki does not (afaik)
send an smaxage caching header for requests with an oldid in them. See
the $output->setSquidMaxage( $wgSquidMaxage ); line in
MediaWiki::performAction (line 425 of includes/Wiki.php). The caching
headers are only sent if the url is in the list of urls that can be
purged (basically normal page views and history page views). If other
pages are being cached, it probably means all pages are being cached
for you, which is not a good thing and will cause problems, since
there are some pages that really should not be cached.
In the case of oldid urls, it may make sense for us to send caching
headers with oldid urls, since they do not change (excluding of course
oldid's that don't exist)
--bawolff
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l