This is an optimization for processing pipeline, we discussed a
problem in issue #5229: clients may be paused if we apply `CLIENT
PAUSE` command, and then querybuf may grow too large, the cost of
memmove in sdsrange after parsing a completed command will be
horrible. The optimization is that parsing all commands in queyrbuf
, after that we can just call sdsrange only once.
This is an optimization for processing pipeline, we discussed a
problem in issue #5229: clients may be paused if we apply `CLIENT
PAUSE` command, and then querybuf may grow too large, the cost of
memmove in sdsrange after parsing a completed command will be
horrible. The optimization is that parsing all commands in queyrbuf
, after that we can just call sdsrange only once.
This should be able to find new bugs and regressions about the new
sorted set update function when ZADD is used to update an element
already existing.
The test is able to find the bug fixed at 2f282aee immediately.
This should be able to find new bugs and regressions about the new
sorted set update function when ZADD is used to update an element
already existing.
The test is able to find the bug fixed at 2f282aee immediately.
When the element new score is the same of prev/next node, the
lexicographical order kicks in, so we can safely update the node in
place only when the new score is strictly between the adjacent nodes
but never equal to one of them.
Technically speaking we could do extra checks to make sure that even if the
score is the same as one of the adjacent nodes, we can still update on
place, but this rarely happens, so probably not a good deal to make it
more complex.
Related to #5179.
When the element new score is the same of prev/next node, the
lexicographical order kicks in, so we can safely update the node in
place only when the new score is strictly between the adjacent nodes
but never equal to one of them.
Technically speaking we could do extra checks to make sure that even if the
score is the same as one of the adjacent nodes, we can still update on
place, but this rarely happens, so probably not a good deal to make it
more complex.
Related to #5179.
Slaves and rebooting redis may have different radix tree struct,
by different stream* config options. So propagating approximated
MAXLEN to AOF/slaves may lead to date inconsistency.
Slaves and rebooting redis may have different radix tree struct,
by different stream* config options. So propagating approximated
MAXLEN to AOF/slaves may lead to date inconsistency.
If we rewrite the MAXLEN argument as zero when no trimming
was performed, date between master and slave and aof will
be inconsistent, because `xtrim maxlen 0` means delete all
entries in stream.
If we rewrite the MAXLEN argument as zero when no trimming
was performed, date between master and slave and aof will
be inconsistent, because `xtrim maxlen 0` means delete all
entries in stream.
