On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:07:29AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Okay. I see what you mean now. > > If the interval is configurable via a directive, then yes that makes sense. > This could be done independently of deterministic tempfiles.
It could, though it would require using a seperate locking mechanism. > (I hope this means you volunteer to write the patch!) Unless someone beats me too it. > However, using deterministic tempfiles means that there's a possibility of > a 'deadlock' - in that a response will never be updated because of a stuck > or dead process. I've not seen a feasible strategy to resolve this issue. Dead process is solveable with IPC, the existing locking schemes should be enough for this. The hard problem I think is when a backend has stalled. Can't think of an easy fix for that case. -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
