This has already been landed, however the naming seems a bit backwards - IMO it would be better to have background_cache_updates (even if that defaults to true), rather than a disable_cache_background_update that defaults to false (even enable_background_cache_updates would at least be consistent with the following option).
This has already been landed, however the naming seems a bit backwards - IMO it would be better to have background_ cache_updates (even if that defaults to true), rather than a disable_ cache_backgroun d_update that defaults to false (even enable_ background_ cache_updates would at least be consistent with the following option).