On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not sure the readahead is worth it in 2.2.x though, because > check_pipeline_flush() does an inconditional flush anyway, and the > issue in 2.4.x was that trailing newline(s) might have caused the next > request to block in ap_read_request() without flushing the previous > one. > AFAICT this can't happen in 2.2.x thanks to the FLUSH.
Hmm, my bad, I missed the early return (/* don't flush */) in check_pipeline_flush(). So we may also either backport the check_pipeline() read-ahead part, or simply really always FLUSH (avoiding pipelined response). WDYT?
