When we fail to setup the write handler it does not make sense to take
the client around, it is missing writes: whatever is a client or a slave
anyway the connection should terminated ASAP.
Moreover what the function does exactly with its return value, and in
which case the write handler is installed on the socket, was not clear,
so the functions comment are improved to make the goals of the function
more obvious.
Also related to #2485.
When we fail to setup the write handler it does not make sense to take
the client around, it is missing writes: whatever is a client or a slave
anyway the connection should terminated ASAP.
Moreover what the function does exactly with its return value, and in
which case the write handler is installed on the socket, was not clear,
so the functions comment are improved to make the goals of the function
more obvious.
Also related to #2485.
master was closing the connection if the RDB transfer took long time.
and also sent PINGs to the slave before it got the initial ACK, in which case the slave wouldn't be able to find the EOF marker.
master was closing the connection if the RDB transfer took long time.
and also sent PINGs to the slave before it got the initial ACK, in which case the slave wouldn't be able to find the EOF marker.
Segfault introduced during a refactoring / warning suppression a few
commits away. This particular call assumed that it is safe to pass NULL
to the object pointer argument when we are sure the set has a given
encoding. This can't be assumed and is now guaranteed to segfault
because of the new API of setTypeNext().
Segfault introduced during a refactoring / warning suppression a few
commits away. This particular call assumed that it is safe to pass NULL
to the object pointer argument when we are sure the set has a given
encoding. This can't be assumed and is now guaranteed to segfault
because of the new API of setTypeNext().
This change fixes several warnings compiling at -O3 level with GCC
4.8.2, and at the same time, in case of misuse of the API, we have the
pointer initialize to NULL or the integer initialized to the value
-123456789 which is easy to spot by naked eye.
This change fixes several warnings compiling at -O3 level with GCC
4.8.2, and at the same time, in case of misuse of the API, we have the
pointer initialize to NULL or the integer initialized to the value
-123456789 which is easy to spot by naked eye.
No semantical changes since to make dict.c truly able to scale over the
32 bit table size limit, the hash function shoulds and other internals
related to hash function output should be 64 bit ready.
No semantical changes since to make dict.c truly able to scale over the
32 bit table size limit, the hash function shoulds and other internals
related to hash function output should be 64 bit ready.
rehashidx is always positive in the two code paths, since the only
negative value it could have is -1 when there is no rehashing in
progress, and the condition is explicitly checked.
rehashidx is always positive in the two code paths, since the only
negative value it could have is -1 when there is no rehashing in
progress, and the condition is explicitly checked.
Bug as old as Redis and blocking operations. It's hard to trigger since
only happens on instance role switch, but the results are quite bad
since an inconsistency between master and slave is created.
How to trigger the bug is a good description of the bug itself.
1. Client does "BLPOP mylist 0" in master.
2. Master is turned into slave, that replicates from New-Master.
3. Client does "LPUSH mylist foo" in New-Master.
4. New-Master propagates write to slave.
5. Slave receives the LPUSH, the blocked client get served.
Now Master "mylist" key has "foo", Slave "mylist" key is empty.
Highlights:
* At step "2" above, the client remains attached, basically escaping any
check performed during command dispatch: read only slave, in that case.
* At step "5" the slave (that was the master), serves the blocked client
consuming a list element, which is not consumed on the master side.
This scenario is technically likely to happen during failovers, however
since Redis Sentinel already disconnects clients using the CLIENT
command when changing the role of the instance, the bug is avoided in
Sentinel deployments.
Closes#2473.
Bug as old as Redis and blocking operations. It's hard to trigger since
only happens on instance role switch, but the results are quite bad
since an inconsistency between master and slave is created.
How to trigger the bug is a good description of the bug itself.
1. Client does "BLPOP mylist 0" in master.
2. Master is turned into slave, that replicates from New-Master.
3. Client does "LPUSH mylist foo" in New-Master.
4. New-Master propagates write to slave.
5. Slave receives the LPUSH, the blocked client get served.
Now Master "mylist" key has "foo", Slave "mylist" key is empty.
Highlights:
* At step "2" above, the client remains attached, basically escaping any
check performed during command dispatch: read only slave, in that case.
* At step "5" the slave (that was the master), serves the blocked client
consuming a list element, which is not consumed on the master side.
This scenario is technically likely to happen during failovers, however
since Redis Sentinel already disconnects clients using the CLIENT
command when changing the role of the instance, the bug is avoided in
Sentinel deployments.
Closes#2473.
