On Dec 12, 2007, at 8:06 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007 13:59
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r603502 -
/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:16 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
The connection memory pool was a different memory pool
before. It was
the memory pool of the front end connection. Now it is the
memory pool
of the backend connection pool connection. See also
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=603237
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=602542
If we would use r->connection->pool instead of r->pool it would be
exactly the
same as before the two revisions above, but regarding the pool
livetimes I
think r->connection->pool lives too long and thus using r->pool
wastes less
memory.
This is all based on not even looking at these changes, so I
may be blowing smoke. But certainly the backend connection
pool lasts longer than the initial request that "bootstrapped"
that connection, right? So if we creating the backend stuff
out of r->pool, then for sure that can't be right...
The backend connection: Yes, I agree.
The backend request (rp): No, it lasts shorter than r, and it gets
recreated for every new request.
OK, wanted to make sure that we agreed that there are 2 scopes
we need to be aware of ;)
