Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:21:05 +0400: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: > > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 23:22:12 +0200: > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Philip Martin > >> >> <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> wrote: > >> >>> Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> writes: > >> >>> > >> >>>> I'm really not a fan of this config knob. Anyone who carries their > >> >>>> laptop around will effectively have to set this as the default, > >> >>>> because > >> >>>> you never know when the next weird proxy will pop up in front of your > >> >>>> server. And disabling chunked requests by default is a lot worse than > >> >>>> the extra non-pipelined request for broken proxies, IMO. > >> >> > >> >> Right. > >> >> > >> >> Though I suspect most of the problems are reverse proxies in front of > >> >> a particular server, so you can put the config option into a [server] > >> >> config block instead of global. That will help to limit the problem, > >> >> but lack of dynamic detection is still a problem. > >> >> > >> > What is the benefit of dynamic detection enabled by some knob in config > >> > file? > >> > >> The dynamic detection has a cost (1 extra request per connection), > >> that you might want to avoid by default (most environments won't need > >> the dynamic detection (especially corporate environments)). Only > >> enable the dynamic detection if you know the proxy has a problem with > >> chunkness, or if you're not sure it will stay that way, or ... > >> > >> (not interfering with the rest of the discussion right now :-) > > > > AIUI the cost is only incurred by set-ups that have the so-called > > "busted" proxies. And a config option has a cost too: it would need to > > be supported until 2.0 (aka, indefinitely). > Please note that this extra request is per session and currently we > create many sessions even during one operation. And I'm also not happy > to make performance worse for users who doesn't use reverse proxies > and etc.
Please define "etc". Also, I just said that the cost is only incurred only by people who use a "so-called 'busted' proxy". If you think that is not true, please say that explicitly, I don't want to have to fish from your words whether you think that is the case or not. (We have enough bad implications on IRC right now; don't need more on list)
