On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:26 PM, yla...@apache.org wrote:
+apr_bucket_brigade *tmp_bb;
} proxy_conn_rec;
> On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:26 PM, yla...@apache.org wrote:
>>>
>>> +apr_bucket_brigade *tmp_bb;
>>> } proxy_conn_rec;
>>>
>>
>> I am missing the reason why this brigade needs to
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> I thought we could later follow up on this change and optimize these
> by using the new tmp_bb field (cleanup is faster than
> create/destroy)...
Something like the attached patch.
Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c
===
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:26 PM, yla...@apache.org wrote:
>>
>> +apr_bucket_brigade *tmp_bb;
>> } proxy_conn_rec;
>>
>
> I am missing the reason why this brigade needs to be
> a field in this struct. Is it simply to prevent us having
> to
> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:26 PM, yla...@apache.org wrote:
>
> +apr_bucket_brigade *tmp_bb;
> } proxy_conn_rec;
>
I am missing the reason why this brigade needs to be
a field in this struct. Is it simply to prevent us having
to create it during each call of ap_proxy_check_backend()?
