gh-19068 - prevent thundering herd on jwks fetch#19069
Open
anschnapp wants to merge 1 commit intospring-projects:mainfrom
Open
gh-19068 - prevent thundering herd on jwks fetch#19069anschnapp wants to merge 1 commit intospring-projects:mainfrom
anschnapp wants to merge 1 commit intospring-projects:mainfrom
Conversation
spring-projects-issues
added
the
status: waiting-for-triage
anschnapp
force-pushed
the
gh-19068-prevent-thundering-herd-jwks-fetch
branch
2 times, most recently
from
3ce813b to
573e026
Compare
Signed-off-by: anschnapp <a.snap@t-online.de>
anschnapp
force-pushed
the
gh-19068-prevent-thundering-herd-jwks-fetch
branch
from
573e026 to
304310a
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Concurrent requests arriving during cold start (empty JWK cache) should coalesce into a single HTTP call to the JWKS endpoint. It seems like the intension was that this already should work because of the cache() reactive operator.
Please see #19068 for more information