On Tuesday 13 November 2001 10:58 pm, Brian Pane wrote: > Cliff Woolley < mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > > We are talking about destroying the sub request. By the time this is > > > done, we have already passed all of the data from the sub-requests > > > filter stack to the original requests. Either all of the data was > > > written to the network, or it was set-aside. If it was written to the > > > network, we can ignore it. If it was set aside, then it was done so > > > in the original request, so we passed r->pool or c->pool to the > > > setaside function. > > > > [thinks for a minute] Yeah, that does sound right. Bottom line is that > > core_output_filter is (or should be) taking care of all this for us. > > Okay, +1. > > Here's a patch that destroys the subrequest
Finally got around to committing this, just now. :-) Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
