in the case (all chars of the string s found in 'cset' ),
line[573] will no more do the same thing line[572] did.
this will be more faster especially in the case that the string s is very long and all chars of string s found in 'cset'
in the case (all chars of the string s found in 'cset' ),
line[573] will no more do the same thing line[572] did.
this will be more faster especially in the case that the string s is very long and all chars of string s found in 'cset'
Track bandwidth used by clients and replication (but diskless
replication is not tracked since the actual transfer happens in the
child process).
This includes a refactoring that makes tracking new instantaneous
metrics simpler.
Track bandwidth used by clients and replication (but diskless
replication is not tracked since the actual transfer happens in the
child process).
This includes a refactoring that makes tracking new instantaneous
metrics simpler.
PFCOUNT is technically speaking a write command, since the cached value
of the HLL is exposed in the data structure (design error, mea culpa), and
can be modified by PFCOUNT.
However if we flag PFCOUNT as "w", read only slaves can't execute the
command, which is a problem since there are environments where slaves
are used to scale PFCOUNT reads.
Nor it is possible to just prevent PFCOUNT to modify the data structure
in slaves, since without the cache we lose too much efficiency.
So while this commit allows slaves to create a temporary inconsistency
(the strings representing the HLLs in the master and slave can be
different in certain moments) it is actually harmless.
In the long run this should be probably fixed by turning the HLL into a
more opaque representation, for example by storing the cached value in
the part of the string which is not exposed (this should be possible
with SDS strings).
PFCOUNT is technically speaking a write command, since the cached value
of the HLL is exposed in the data structure (design error, mea culpa), and
can be modified by PFCOUNT.
However if we flag PFCOUNT as "w", read only slaves can't execute the
command, which is a problem since there are environments where slaves
are used to scale PFCOUNT reads.
Nor it is possible to just prevent PFCOUNT to modify the data structure
in slaves, since without the cache we lose too much efficiency.
So while this commit allows slaves to create a temporary inconsistency
(the strings representing the HLLs in the master and slave can be
different in certain moments) it is actually harmless.
In the long run this should be probably fixed by turning the HLL into a
more opaque representation, for example by storing the cached value in
the part of the string which is not exposed (this should be possible
with SDS strings).
