Hi Jarno, On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 02:20:00PM +0300, Jarno Huuskonen wrote: > > There's no real state machine there, it's roughly "if request was not > > sent, send it, otherwise try to receive a response; if response is > > received, then process it and close otherwise wait for response". So > > we cannot remain in a "waiting for closing" state after we receive a > > response. I'm wondering if that couldn't be achieved using tcp-checks > > however. I quickly tried but couldn't find a reliable way of doing this > > but I'm thing that we could possibly extend the tcp-check rules to have > > "tcp-check expect close" that would wait for a read0. > > Should there be a somekind of timeout how long to wait for close ? I'm > thinking about backend servers that have very long/infinite keepalive > (and/or don't respect Connection: close).
Yes, we should have this once we rework the checks part. I've added this in an issue already. The timeout should basically be the regular check timeout, it would simply terminate the current check and the connection before starting a new one. It would simply refrain from complaining! Cheers, Willy
