https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54101
--- Comment #11 from Chris Pitchford <[email protected]> --- I second this, 64 bytes is not sufficiently long. It is prohibitively short when, for example, using Amazon AWS long hostnames for back end systems Have I missed a reason why it needs to be so short? According to wikipedia (and I fully appreciate this is very unprofessional to quote WP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostname Each label must be between 1 and 63 characters long,[2] and the entire hostname (including the delimiting dots) has a maximum of 255 characters Can we assume that the backend can be FQDN not just a single host? 255 characters would seem a minimum for a FQDN. 64 is only sufficient for a single hostname. (In reply to ryotakatsuki from comment #9) > I see the patch already included in trunk but the part in which the > PROXY_WORKER_MAX_HOSTNAME_SIZE and PROXY_WORKER_MAX_NAME_SIZE were increased > is not there (I realized that after get a "ProxyPass worker name > (fcgi://uds=%2fsome%2fsocket.sock/tmp/somedirectory too long)"). Was that > dropped intentionally? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
