On 01/03/2006 03:52 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 10:18:19PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote: >
[..cut..] > >>2. Proposal >>If a subrequest has a broken backend do not sent the error bucket. Only >>set r->no_cache to ensure that this subrequest response does not get >>cached. > > > I think we still need to ensure that an error bucket is sent too, right? > Otherwise, the connection will be reused - what am I missing? -- justin No, you are not missing anything. The question to me was: Do we need to close a keepalive on the main request just because a subrequest failed in the middle of the response? Or to be more precise: Should the behaviour to cut off the keepalive be the default behaviour in such cases with the chance for subrequest creators to remove the error bucket and to make the response cacheable again or should it be the other way round that the subrequest creator is reponsible for preventing caching and closing the keepalive by sending the error bucket by himself if he thinks that this is needed? While writing this I personally come to the conclusion that the 1. proposal (sending the error bucket) is saver as a default behaviour. Regards Rüdiger
