Checking OOM by `getMaxMemoryState` inside script might get different result
with `freeMemoryIfNeededAndSafe` at script start, because lua stack and
arguments also consume memory.
This leads to memory `borderline` when memory grows near server.maxmemory:
- `freeMemoryIfNeededAndSafe` at script start detects no OOM, no memory freed
- `getMaxMemoryState` inside script detects OOM, script aborted
We solve this 'borderline' issue by saving OOM state at script start to get
stable lua OOM state.
related to issue #6565 and #5250.
Checking OOM by `getMaxMemoryState` inside script might get different result
with `freeMemoryIfNeededAndSafe` at script start, because lua stack and
arguments also consume memory.
This leads to memory `borderline` when memory grows near server.maxmemory:
- `freeMemoryIfNeededAndSafe` at script start detects no OOM, no memory freed
- `getMaxMemoryState` inside script detects OOM, script aborted
We solve this 'borderline' issue by saving OOM state at script start to get
stable lua OOM state.
related to issue #6565 and #5250.
There is an inherent race between the deferring client and the
"main" client of the test: While the deferring client issues a blocking
command, we can't know for sure that by the time the "main" client
tries to issue another command (Usually one that unblocks the deferring
client) the deferring client is even blocked...
For lack of a better choice this commit uses TCL's 'after' in order
to give some time for the deferring client to issues its blocking
command before the "main" client does its thing.
This problem probably exists in many other tests but this commit
tries to fix blockonkeys.tcl
There is an inherent race between the deferring client and the
"main" client of the test: While the deferring client issues a blocking
command, we can't know for sure that by the time the "main" client
tries to issue another command (Usually one that unblocks the deferring
client) the deferring client is even blocked...
For lack of a better choice this commit uses TCL's 'after' in order
to give some time for the deferring client to issues its blocking
command before the "main" client does its thing.
This problem probably exists in many other tests but this commit
tries to fix blockonkeys.tcl
propagate_last_id is declared outside of the loop but used
only from within the loop. Once it's '1' it will never go
back to '0' and will replicate XSETID even for IDs that
don't actually change the last_id.
While not a serious bug (XSETID always used group->last_id
so there's no risk), it does causes redundant traffic
between master and its replicas
propagate_last_id is declared outside of the loop but used
only from within the loop. Once it's '1' it will never go
back to '0' and will replicate XSETID even for IDs that
don't actually change the last_id.
While not a serious bug (XSETID always used group->last_id
so there's no risk), it does causes redundant traffic
between master and its replicas
Example: Client uses a pipe to send the following to a
stale replica:
MULTI
.. do something ...
DISCARD
The replica will reply the MUTLI with -MASTERDOWN and
execute the rest of the commands... A client using a
pipe might not be aware that MULTI failed until it's
too late.
I can't think of a reason why MULTI/EXEC/DISCARD should
not be executed on stale replicas...
Also, enable MULTI/EXEC/DISCARD during loading
Example: Client uses a pipe to send the following to a
stale replica:
MULTI
.. do something ...
DISCARD
The replica will reply the MUTLI with -MASTERDOWN and
execute the rest of the commands... A client using a
pipe might not be aware that MULTI failed until it's
too late.
I can't think of a reason why MULTI/EXEC/DISCARD should
not be executed on stale replicas...
Also, enable MULTI/EXEC/DISCARD during loading
First, we must parse the IDs, so that we abort ASAP.
The return value of this command cannot be an error if
the client successfully acknowledged some messages,
so it should be executed in a "all or nothing" fashion.
First, we must parse the IDs, so that we abort ASAP.
The return value of this command cannot be an error if
the client successfully acknowledged some messages,
so it should be executed in a "all or nothing" fashion.
By using a "circular BRPOPLPUSH"-like scenario it was
possible the get the same client on db->blocking_keys
twice (See comment in moduleTryServeClientBlockedOnKey)
The fix was actually already implememnted in
moduleTryServeClientBlockedOnKey but it had a bug:
the funxction should return 0 or 1 (not OK or ERR)
Other changes:
1. Added two commands to blockonkeys.c test module (To
reproduce the case described above)
2. Simplify blockonkeys.c in order to make testing easier
3. cast raxSize() to avoid warning with format spec
By using a "circular BRPOPLPUSH"-like scenario it was
possible the get the same client on db->blocking_keys
twice (See comment in moduleTryServeClientBlockedOnKey)
The fix was actually already implememnted in
moduleTryServeClientBlockedOnKey but it had a bug:
the funxction should return 0 or 1 (not OK or ERR)
Other changes:
1. Added two commands to blockonkeys.c test module (To
reproduce the case described above)
2. Simplify blockonkeys.c in order to make testing easier
3. cast raxSize() to avoid warning with format spec
