Sorry,
I sent the following message to wrong ML. Please ignore it.
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:17:01 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have question about rotatelogs process handling.
>
> When apache is logging with rotatelogs and rotatelogs
> process died (e.g. accidentaly killed by someone),
> Apache-1.3 respawns rotatelogs process and keeps logging but
> Apache-2.0 does nothing and does not output log anymore.
>
> What I found is this behaviour is implemented with
> server/log.c Revision 1.46. (see the following log and diff)
>
> ===============================================================================
> Revision 1.46 / (view) - annotate - [select for diffs] , Thu
> May 4 19:42:54 2000 UTC (2 years, 9 months ago) by rbb
> Branch: MAIN
> Changes since 1.45: +7 -0 lines
> Diff to previous 1.45 (colored)
> Port reliable piped logs to mpmt_pthread and dexter. Also a couple of small
> cleanups for reliable piped logs.
>
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/cvspublic/httpd-2.0/server/log.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.45
> retrieving revision 1.46
> diff -u -r1.45 -r1.46
> --- httpd-2.0/server/log.c 2000/05/04 04:02:16 1.45
> +++ httpd-2.0/server/log.c 2000/05/04 19:42:54 1.46
> @@ -636,6 +636,13 @@
>
> switch (reason) {
> case APR_OC_REASON_DEATH:
> + pl->pid = NULL;
> + ap_unregister_other_child(pl);
> + if (pl->program == NULL) {
> + /* during a restart */
> + break;
> + }
> + break;
> case APR_OC_REASON_LOST:
> pl->pid = NULL;
> ap_unregister_other_child(pl);
> ===============================================================================
>
> Does anybody know what is intension of this change?
>
> Apache-1.3's respawnning of piped_log process is not
> intentional behaviour?
>
> If I do not use any thread (i.e. use only prefork), can I
> remove above added part of code from log.c for my web server?
>
> I just did small test with changed code and it looks working fine.
> (i.e. when I killed rotatelogs process, httpd respawned
> rotatelogs and keep logging!!)
>
> I appreciate any comment or suggestion.
>
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
