> > > > The core can't do anything about it. If you are creating a > > sub-request, > > > > you must flush the data. > > > > > > Bing! > > > > > > ANY filter inserted by the subreq could be holding content. The > > subrequest > > > definitely MUST flush out its filter stack before going away. > > > > > > Yes, old_write buffers, and if that is "attached" to the subrequest, > > then > > > it > > > must be flushed. But it really isn't about old_write. > > > > We aren't talking about the sub-request flushing its buffers at the end > > of the request. That happens automatically, because the sub-request > > must send an EOS. > > Right. > > And ignore my comment about the new bucket type for a subreq ending. I > forgot about the EOS thing. > > > We are talking about the main request flushing its > > buffers before it runs the request. > > Um. How'd the buffers get filled before running the request?
The problem is that the main request generates content, and that goes into the OLD_WRITE filter buffer. Then it creates a sub-request. If the sub-request doesn't use the same OLD_WRITE instance, you have a major bug. Ryan
