On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 01:31:05PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote: > On Wed, September 27, 2006 11:37 am, Joe Orton wrote: > > > I don't get it - as discussed, this approach is completely unsound. > > There is no reason to assume it's possible to copy the entire content > > into the cache before sending anything to the client just because it > > happens to be a FILE bucket (think slow NFS servers). That is something > > which needs to be *fixed*, not explicitly hard-coded. > > The previous approach, which was to attempt to load the entire file into > RAM, resulting in a segfault - that was completely unsound.
The new approach is exactly the same for other bucket types, FILE should not be treated as special just to avoid that. Other bucket types will cause the same memory consumption issue (notably CGI/PIPE). joe
