On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > This is the deferred write triggering *after* the keepalive timeout, > whereas no subsequent request was pipelined. > I wonder if we shouldn't issue a flush at the end of each request when > the following is not already there, ie:
Can you describe what breaks the current code? It looks like it's already trying to handle this case, I couldn't tell the operative difference.
