We don't want to increment the deliveries here, because the sysadmin
reset the consumer group so the desire is likely to restart processing,
and having the PEL polluted with old information is not useful but
probably confusing.
Related to #5111.
We don't want to increment the deliveries here, because the sysadmin
reset the consumer group so the desire is likely to restart processing,
and having the PEL polluted with old information is not useful but
probably confusing.
Related to #5111.
To simplify the semantics of blocking for a group, this commit changes
the implementation to better match the description we provide of
conusmer groups: blocking for > will make the consumer waiting for new
elements in the group. However blocking for any other ID will always
serve the local history of the consumer.
However it must be noted that the > ID is actually an alias for the
special ID ms/seq of UINT64_MAX,UINT64_MAX.
To simplify the semantics of blocking for a group, this commit changes
the implementation to better match the description we provide of
conusmer groups: blocking for > will make the consumer waiting for new
elements in the group. However blocking for any other ID will always
serve the local history of the consumer.
However it must be noted that the > ID is actually an alias for the
special ID ms/seq of UINT64_MAX,UINT64_MAX.
To detect when the group (or the whole key) is destroyed to send an
error to the consumers blocked in such group is a problem, so we leave
the consumers listening, the sysadmin is free to create or destroy
groups assuming she/he knows what to do. However a client may be blocked
in a given consumer group, that is later destroyed. Then the stream
receives new elements. In that case there is no sane behavior to serve
the consumer... but to report an error about the group no longer
existing.
More about detecting this synchronously and why it is not done:
1. Normally we don't do that, we leave clients blocked for other data
types such as lists.
2. When we free a stream object there is no longer information about
what was the key it was associated with, so while destroying the
consumer groups we miss the info to unblock the clients in that moment.
3. Objects can be reclaimed in other threads where it is no longer safe
to do client operations.
To detect when the group (or the whole key) is destroyed to send an
error to the consumers blocked in such group is a problem, so we leave
the consumers listening, the sysadmin is free to create or destroy
groups assuming she/he knows what to do. However a client may be blocked
in a given consumer group, that is later destroyed. Then the stream
receives new elements. In that case there is no sane behavior to serve
the consumer... but to report an error about the group no longer
existing.
More about detecting this synchronously and why it is not done:
1. Normally we don't do that, we leave clients blocked for other data
types such as lists.
2. When we free a stream object there is no longer information about
what was the key it was associated with, so while destroying the
consumer groups we miss the info to unblock the clients in that moment.
3. Objects can be reclaimed in other threads where it is no longer safe
to do client operations.
When a client blocks for a consumer group, we don't know the actual ID
we want to be served: other clients blocked in the same consumer group
may be served first, so the consumer group latest delivered ID changes.
This was not handled correctly, all the clients in the consumer group
were unblocked without data but the first.
When a client blocks for a consumer group, we don't know the actual ID
we want to be served: other clients blocked in the same consumer group
may be served first, so the consumer group latest delivered ID changes.
This was not handled correctly, all the clients in the consumer group
were unblocked without data but the first.
