> On Jan 30, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 01/28/2017 07:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> In your scenario does "old mode" == "old" Apache or non Apache? > > "Old" Apache. > >> My idea was to send FCGI data such that PHP-FPM doesn't use *any* >> Apache-related fixups. In other words, httpd sends "what it should" >> and PHP-FPM "uses what it receives" > > Right. My point is that without simultaneous modifications to PHP-FPM, I see > no way to do this without breaking deployed use cases, because of how easily > the fixup code is triggered. And therefore IMO we shouldn't push that change > in 2.4.26, but wait (for a reasonable amount of time) for both sides to agree > on the way forward. > > I'll try to review Eric's patch later this week, since it would help ease the > migration pain (and give other users a path forward even with broken FCGI > backends). >
Looking over fpm_main, Apache is detected iff PHP sees the proxy:balancer and/or proxy:fcgi prefix. Looking at the logic paths related to 'apache_was_here', it looks like it just works around stuff that we *CAN* fix. For example, one code path is due to "mod_proxy_fcgi and ProxyPass, apache cannot set PATH_INFO", but we can, and do now....
