httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r603502 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
Date Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:34:49 GMT

On Dec 12, 2007, at 8:06 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:

>
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007 13:59
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> 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 ;)
Mime
View raw message