On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:56:33PM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > Everything below is true, assuming you are not talking about > sub-requests. According to the stack that Greg posted, the OLD_WRITE > filter was not found in the sub-request filter stack. That is to be > expected, because the OLD_WRITE filter is a RESOURCE filter. Since > RESOURCE filters are not kept for sub-requests, the data must be > flushed.
Right. > Hmmmmm.... Actually it seems like Resource filters should be kept for > sub-requests that are created with a filter list. If that is the case, > then it looks like the OLD_WRITE filter should be in the filter list. If the sub-request goes, then its resource filters should go. Those filters are associated with that particular sub-request. That implies that the resource filters should be flushed before they die. [ but we should probably have a SUBREQ_ENDING_FLUSH bucket so the SUBREQ filter can chew it up; we don't want to flush all the way to the network just cuz the subreq is disappearing. ] > Unless, the OLD_WRITE filter is being added after the sub-request is > created...... The filter is added at the first call to ap_r*(). We decided on the lazy approach so that pure-brigade systems would not suffer the overhead. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
