Addressed in r1621367 and r1621382 Bytes are cheap... should we bump up any others?
On Aug 29, 2014, at 4:25 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem is that we need a name for the matching... And > we use shm for performance reasons... > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >>> On 29 Aug 2014, at 21:05, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> FWIW, this is reported in >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53218 >>> >>> I was thinking of a dual-approach: Increase PROXY_WORKER_MAX_NAME_SIZE >>> and making the truncation of the worker name (s->name) non-fatal >>> (but logged at ALERT)... >>> >> >> I've been bitten by this quite a few times as well. And always when you >> least expect it. >> >> Wondering if it is time to push long names into a uuid or hash; with a >> translation table/db file if needed. >> >> Dw. >> >>>> On Aug 29, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'd like to propose that we bump up PROXY_WORKER_MAX_NAME_SIZE >>>> again, both in trunk but also allow for backporting to >>>> 2.4.x as well. >>> >
