A bug was reported in the context in issue #3631. The root cause of the
bug was that certain neighbor boxes were zeroed after the "inside the
bounding box or not" check, simply because the bounding box computation
function was wrong.
A few debugging infos where enhanced and moved in other parts of the
code. A check to avoid steps=0 was added, but is unrelated to this
issue and I did not verified it was an actual bug in practice.
A bug was reported in the context in issue #3631. The root cause of the
bug was that certain neighbor boxes were zeroed after the "inside the
bounding box or not" check, simply because the bounding box computation
function was wrong.
A few debugging infos where enhanced and moved in other parts of the
code. A check to avoid steps=0 was added, but is unrelated to this
issue and I did not verified it was an actual bug in practice.
A bug was reported in the context in issue #3631. The root cause of the
bug was that certain neighbor boxes were zeroed after the "inside the
bounding box or not" check, simply because the bounding box computation
function was wrong.
A few debugging infos where enhanced and moved in other parts of the
code. A check to avoid steps=0 was added, but is unrelated to this
issue and I did not verified it was an actual bug in practice.
This actually includes two changes:
1) No newlines to take the master-slave link up when the upstream master
is down. Doing this is dangerous because the sub-slave often is received
replication protocol for an half-command, so can't receive newlines
without desyncing the replication link, even with the code in order to
cancel out the bytes that PSYNC2 was using. Moreover this is probably
also not needed/sane, because anyway the slave can keep serving
requests, and because if it's configured to don't serve stale data, it's
a good idea, actually, to break the link.
2) When a +CONTINUE with a different ID is received, we now break
connection with the sub-slaves: they need to be notified as well. This
was part of the original specification but for some reason it was not
implemented in the code, and was alter found as a PSYNC2 bug in the
integration testing.
This actually includes two changes:
1) No newlines to take the master-slave link up when the upstream master
is down. Doing this is dangerous because the sub-slave often is received
replication protocol for an half-command, so can't receive newlines
without desyncing the replication link, even with the code in order to
cancel out the bytes that PSYNC2 was using. Moreover this is probably
also not needed/sane, because anyway the slave can keep serving
requests, and because if it's configured to don't serve stale data, it's
a good idea, actually, to break the link.
2) When a +CONTINUE with a different ID is received, we now break
connection with the sub-slaves: they need to be notified as well. This
was part of the original specification but for some reason it was not
implemented in the code, and was alter found as a PSYNC2 bug in the
integration testing.
This actually includes two changes:
1) No newlines to take the master-slave link up when the upstream master
is down. Doing this is dangerous because the sub-slave often is received
replication protocol for an half-command, so can't receive newlines
without desyncing the replication link, even with the code in order to
cancel out the bytes that PSYNC2 was using. Moreover this is probably
also not needed/sane, because anyway the slave can keep serving
requests, and because if it's configured to don't serve stale data, it's
a good idea, actually, to break the link.
2) When a +CONTINUE with a different ID is received, we now break
connection with the sub-slaves: they need to be notified as well. This
was part of the original specification but for some reason it was not
implemented in the code, and was alter found as a PSYNC2 bug in the
integration testing.
