On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:41:11PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote: > On Wed, September 27, 2006 2:31 pm, Joe Orton wrote: > > > 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). > > I looked at this issue, but I could not see a bucket type that would > typically hold more data in one bucket than available RAM (unless I am > missing the behaviour of one of the bucket types, which is also likely).
Any morphing bucket type (FILE, CGI/PIPE, SOCKET of those shipped) can represent an arbitrary size of data. Whether or not it's more than "available RAM" is immaterial; consuming RAM proportional to content size - be that 1M or 1G - is the problem. joe
