This commit changes what provided by PR #3315 (merged) in order to
let the user specify the log level as a string.
The define could be also used, but when this happens, they must be
decoupled from the defines in the Redis core, like in the other part of
the Redis modules implementations, so that a switch statement (or a
function) remaps between the two, otherwise we are no longer free to
change the internal Redis defines.
This commit changes what provided by PR #3315 (merged) in order to
let the user specify the log level as a string.
The define could be also used, but when this happens, they must be
decoupled from the defines in the Redis core, like in the other part of
the Redis modules implementations, so that a switch statement (or a
function) remaps between the two, otherwise we are no longer free to
change the internal Redis defines.
This commit changes what provided by PR #3315 (merged) in order to
let the user specify the log level as a string.
The define could be also used, but when this happens, they must be
decoupled from the defines in the Redis core, like in the other part of
the Redis modules implementations, so that a switch statement (or a
function) remaps between the two, otherwise we are no longer free to
change the internal Redis defines.
Most of the time to check the last element is the way to go, however
there are patterns where the contrary is the best choice. Zig-zag
scanning implemented in this commmit always checks the obvious element
first (the last added -- think at a loop where the last element
allocated gets freed again and again), and continues checking one
element in the head and one in the tail.
Thanks to @dvisrky that fixed the original implementation of the
function and proposed zig zag scanning.
Most of the time to check the last element is the way to go, however
there are patterns where the contrary is the best choice. Zig-zag
scanning implemented in this commmit always checks the obvious element
first (the last added -- think at a loop where the last element
allocated gets freed again and again), and continues checking one
element in the head and one in the tail.
Thanks to @dvisrky that fixed the original implementation of the
function and proposed zig zag scanning.
Most of the time to check the last element is the way to go, however
there are patterns where the contrary is the best choice. Zig-zag
scanning implemented in this commmit always checks the obvious element
first (the last added -- think at a loop where the last element
allocated gets freed again and again), and continues checking one
element in the head and one in the tail.
Thanks to @dvisrky that fixed the original implementation of the
function and proposed zig zag scanning.
This bug most experienced effect was an inability of Redis to
reconfigure back old masters to slaves after they are reachable again
after a failover. This was due to failing to reset the count of the
pending commands properly, so the master appeared fovever down.
Was introduced in Redis 3.2 new Sentinel connection sharing feature
which is a lot more complex than the 3.0 code, but more scalable.
Many thanks to people reporting the issue, and especially to
@sskorgal for investigating the issue in depth.
Hopefully closes#3285.
This bug most experienced effect was an inability of Redis to
reconfigure back old masters to slaves after they are reachable again
after a failover. This was due to failing to reset the count of the
pending commands properly, so the master appeared fovever down.
Was introduced in Redis 3.2 new Sentinel connection sharing feature
which is a lot more complex than the 3.0 code, but more scalable.
Many thanks to people reporting the issue, and especially to
@sskorgal for investigating the issue in depth.
Hopefully closes#3285.
This bug most experienced effect was an inability of Redis to
reconfigure back old masters to slaves after they are reachable again
after a failover. This was due to failing to reset the count of the
pending commands properly, so the master appeared fovever down.
Was introduced in Redis 3.2 new Sentinel connection sharing feature
which is a lot more complex than the 3.0 code, but more scalable.
Many thanks to people reporting the issue, and especially to
@sskorgal for investigating the issue in depth.
Hopefully closes#3285.
I recently introduced populating the autocomplete help array with the
COMMAND command if available. However this was performed before parsing
the arguments, defaulting to instance 6379. After the connection is
performed it remains stable.
The effect is that if there is an instance running on port 6339,
whatever port you specify is ignored and 6379 is connected to instead.
The right port will be selected only after a reconnection.
Close#3314.
I recently introduced populating the autocomplete help array with the
COMMAND command if available. However this was performed before parsing
the arguments, defaulting to instance 6379. After the connection is
performed it remains stable.
The effect is that if there is an instance running on port 6339,
whatever port you specify is ignored and 6379 is connected to instead.
The right port will be selected only after a reconnection.
Close#3314.
I recently introduced populating the autocomplete help array with the
COMMAND command if available. However this was performed before parsing
the arguments, defaulting to instance 6379. After the connection is
performed it remains stable.
The effect is that if there is an instance running on port 6339,
whatever port you specify is ignored and 6379 is connected to instead.
The right port will be selected only after a reconnection.
Close#3314.
Reference issue #3218.
Checking the code I can't find a reason why the original RESTORE
code was so opinionated about restoring only the current version. The
code in to `rdb.c` appears to be capable as always to restore data from
older versions of Redis, and the only places where it is needed the
current version in order to correctly restore data, is while loading the
opcodes, not the values itself as it happens in the case of RESTORE.
For the above reasons, this commit enables RESTORE to accept older
versions of values payloads.
Reference issue #3218.
Checking the code I can't find a reason why the original RESTORE
code was so opinionated about restoring only the current version. The
code in to `rdb.c` appears to be capable as always to restore data from
older versions of Redis, and the only places where it is needed the
current version in order to correctly restore data, is while loading the
opcodes, not the values itself as it happens in the case of RESTORE.
For the above reasons, this commit enables RESTORE to accept older
versions of values payloads.
Reference issue #3218.
Checking the code I can't find a reason why the original RESTORE
code was so opinionated about restoring only the current version. The
code in to `rdb.c` appears to be capable as always to restore data from
older versions of Redis, and the only places where it is needed the
current version in order to correctly restore data, is while loading the
opcodes, not the values itself as it happens in the case of RESTORE.
For the above reasons, this commit enables RESTORE to accept older
versions of values payloads.
