> Am 21.09.2017 um 13:35 schrieb Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com>: > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Stefan Eissing >> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 21.09.2017 um 11:37 schrieb Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> If the module defines its own server_config_create() which allocates >>>> one, each vhost will have its own, and the module's >>>> server_config_merge() can do whatever needs to for the members of the >>>> config (pointer copy, shallow/deep copy, ...). >>> >>> Yes, but only *iff* there is every a directive of that module used in >>> a VirtualHost. >> >> OK, I see know, thanks. >> >> I'd call that a premature optimization though, even if it matured for >> decades :) >> Only the module knows what to do when merging, so I think the core >> config should still call config_create() and config_merge() for those, >> precisely because post_config() is always called. >> Modules also know how to merge configs that do nothing (usually), with >> all those _set members all over the place, so it should work (untested >> ;) even if it may consume more (not that much I think) initial memory >> for large confs. > > Maybe less intrusive for a module to make a copy of its config if it > detects base/vh are the same and needs them to differ?
That is why I "fixed" this for mod_ssl only. But mod_md has similar code now. Do we have some sort of bitfield of flags for each module? That would be great as we could make an opt-in change that way. -Stefan
