Re: [RFC] Revert/extend/postpone original RFC about read_only, lazy_write sessions

Hi, >> >> > How about making it a INI option? It makes session_start() option >> >> > handling >> >> > code >> >> > a little simpler. It's not mandatory, though. >> >> >> >> +1 from me, if it is to be kept as an option. >> > >> > >> > I'm about to modify patch to make it INI. No objections for this? >> >> Well, I said 'if' we keep it as an option at all. I'd rather update >> the RFC to propose it as non-optional behavior since there are no >> downsides from it, as I understand. > > > How should we handle this? > It was session_start() option e.g. session_start(['lazy_write'=>true]); > We are proposing make it INI option. > > Since session_start() accepts all INI options, so it can work as > session_start(['lazy_write'=>true]); > with INI. > > Anyone? I'll rephrase ... I'm proposing lazy_write at all times, no option. Optional performance improvements don't make sense to me. > Please refer to code for details. > > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/628/ Wooow, that includes way more additions than those related to the session-lock-ini RFC. Does it have to be all in one patch? I'll comment further on github to avoid more spam here. Cheers, Andrey.