The claim about unlinking the instance from the connected hash tables
was the opposite of the reality. Also the current actual behavior is
safer in most cases, so it is better to manually unlink when needed.
The claim about unlinking the instance from the connected hash tables
was the opposite of the reality. Also the current actual behavior is
safer in most cases, so it is better to manually unlink when needed.
The new function is used when we want to normalize an IP address without
performing a DNS lookup if the string to resolve is not a valid IP.
This is useful every time only IPs are valid inputs or when we want to
skip DNS resolution that is slow during runtime operations if we are
required to block.
The new function is used when we want to normalize an IP address without
performing a DNS lookup if the string to resolve is not a valid IP.
This is useful every time only IPs are valid inputs or when we want to
skip DNS resolution that is slow during runtime operations if we are
required to block.
Masters not understanding REPLCONF ACK will reply with errors to our
requests causing a number of possible issues.
This commit detects a global replication offest set to -1 at the end of
the replication, and marks the client representing the master with the
REDIS_PRE_PSYNC flag.
Note that this flag was called REDIS_PRE_PSYNC_SLAVE but now it is just
REDIS_PRE_PSYNC as it is used for both slaves and masters starting with
this commit.
This commit fixes issue #1488.
Masters not understanding REPLCONF ACK will reply with errors to our
requests causing a number of possible issues.
This commit detects a global replication offest set to -1 at the end of
the replication, and marks the client representing the master with the
REDIS_PRE_PSYNC flag.
Note that this flag was called REDIS_PRE_PSYNC_SLAVE but now it is just
REDIS_PRE_PSYNC as it is used for both slaves and masters starting with
this commit.
This commit fixes issue #1488.
Now the socket is closed if anetNonBlock() fails, and in general the
code structure makes it harder to introduce this kind of bugs in the
future.
Reference: pull request #1059.
Now the socket is closed if anetNonBlock() fails, and in general the
code structure makes it harder to introduce this kind of bugs in the
future.
Reference: pull request #1059.
There were two problems with the implementation.
1) "save" was not correctly processed when no save point was configured,
as reported in issue #1416.
2) The way the code checked if an option existed in the "processed"
dictionary was wrong, as we add the element with as a key associated
with a NULL value, so dictFetchValue() can't be used to check for
existance, but dictFind() must be used, that returns NULL only if the
entry does not exist at all.
There were two problems with the implementation.
1) "save" was not correctly processed when no save point was configured,
as reported in issue #1416.
2) The way the code checked if an option existed in the "processed"
dictionary was wrong, as we add the element with as a key associated
with a NULL value, so dictFetchValue() can't be used to check for
existance, but dictFind() must be used, that returns NULL only if the
entry does not exist at all.
Currently replication offsets could be used into a limited way in order
to understand, out of a set of slaves, what is the one with the most
updated data. For example this comparison is possible of N slaves
were replicating all with the same master.
However the replication offset was not transferred from master to slaves
(that are later promoted as masters) in any way, so for instance if
there were three instances A, B, C, with A master and B and C
replication from A, the following could happen:
C disconnects from A.
B is turned into master.
A is switched to master of B.
B receives some write.
In this context there was no way to compare the offset of A and C,
because B would use its own local master replication offset as
replication offset to initialize the replication with A.
With this commit what happens is that when B is turned into master it
inherits the replication offset from A, making A and C comparable.
In the above case assuming no inconsistencies are created during the
disconnection and failover process, A will show to have a replication
offset greater than C.
Note that this does not mean offsets are always comparable to understand
what is, in a set of instances, since in more complex examples the
replica with the higher replication offset could be partitioned away
when picking the instance to elect as new master. However this in
general improves the ability of a system to try to pick a good replica
to promote to master.
Currently replication offsets could be used into a limited way in order
to understand, out of a set of slaves, what is the one with the most
updated data. For example this comparison is possible of N slaves
were replicating all with the same master.
However the replication offset was not transferred from master to slaves
(that are later promoted as masters) in any way, so for instance if
there were three instances A, B, C, with A master and B and C
replication from A, the following could happen:
C disconnects from A.
B is turned into master.
A is switched to master of B.
B receives some write.
In this context there was no way to compare the offset of A and C,
because B would use its own local master replication offset as
replication offset to initialize the replication with A.
With this commit what happens is that when B is turned into master it
inherits the replication offset from A, making A and C comparable.
In the above case assuming no inconsistencies are created during the
disconnection and failover process, A will show to have a replication
offset greater than C.
Note that this does not mean offsets are always comparable to understand
what is, in a set of instances, since in more complex examples the
replica with the higher replication offset could be partitioned away
when picking the instance to elect as new master. However this in
general improves the ability of a system to try to pick a good replica
to promote to master.
