https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61090
--- Comment #6 from [email protected] --- (In reply to Eric Covener from comment #5) > (In reply to felipe from comment #4) > > Whether the upstream application does a “staged” shutdown as 7230/6.6 > > envisions or does an abrupt close(), the change in mod_proxy would be the > > same, wouldn’t it? > > I don't think so, my assumption is that if the server had read the body, > there would be no RST and the response would be read and returned as if it > was a function of the body (as in a normal flow) Having the server read the (entire) POST body is wasteful, though: the client is “waiting for nothing”. > > > > > Maybe mod_proxy wouldn’t necessarily have to poll() for a read event unless > > ECONNRESET is received? I’m not sure of the performance implications of > > poll()ing for 2 events regularly rather than just one, but I’d think that > > would be the simplest way to handle the situation. > > Seems like there is/was a risk in waiting for the write failure, the unread > response might not still be given back to mod_proxy if the stack has seen > the RST. It’s definitely a less clean approach, true. -- 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]
