The conclusion, that a xread request can be answered syncronously in
case that the stream's last_id is larger than the passed last-received-id
parameter, assumes, that there must be entries present, which could be
returned immediately.
This assumption fails for empty streams that actually contained some
entries which got removed by xdel, ... .
As result, the client is answered synchronously with an empty result,
instead of blocking for new entries to arrive.
An additional check for a non-empty stream is required.
The conclusion, that a xread request can be answered syncronously in
case that the stream's last_id is larger than the passed last-received-id
parameter, assumes, that there must be entries present, which could be
returned immediately.
This assumption fails for empty streams that actually contained some
entries which got removed by xdel, ... .
As result, the client is answered synchronously with an empty result,
instead of blocking for new entries to arrive.
An additional check for a non-empty stream is required.
The conclusion, that a xread request can be answered syncronously in
case that the stream's last_id is larger than the passed last-received-id
parameter, assumes, that there must be entries present, which could be
returned immediately.
This assumption fails for empty streams that actually contained some
entries which got removed by xdel, ... .
As result, the client is answered synchronously with an empty result,
instead of blocking for new entries to arrive.
An additional check for a non-empty stream is required.
If we are going to read a large object from network
try to make it likely that it will start at c->querybuf
boundary so that we can optimize object creation
avoiding a large copy of data.
But only when the data we have not parsed is less than
or equal to ll+2. If the data length is greater than
ll+2, trimming querybuf is just a waste of time, because
at this time the querybuf contains not only our bulk.
It's easy to reproduce the that:
Time1: call `client pause 10000` on slave.
Time2: redis-benchmark -t set -r 10000 -d 33000 -n 10000.
Then slave hung after 10 seconds.
If we are going to read a large object from network
try to make it likely that it will start at c->querybuf
boundary so that we can optimize object creation
avoiding a large copy of data.
But only when the data we have not parsed is less than
or equal to ll+2. If the data length is greater than
ll+2, trimming querybuf is just a waste of time, because
at this time the querybuf contains not only our bulk.
It's easy to reproduce the that:
Time1: call `client pause 10000` on slave.
Time2: redis-benchmark -t set -r 10000 -d 33000 -n 10000.
Then slave hung after 10 seconds.
If we are going to read a large object from network
try to make it likely that it will start at c->querybuf
boundary so that we can optimize object creation
avoiding a large copy of data.
But only when the data we have not parsed is less than
or equal to ll+2. If the data length is greater than
ll+2, trimming querybuf is just a waste of time, because
at this time the querybuf contains not only our bulk.
It's easy to reproduce the that:
Time1: call `client pause 10000` on slave.
Time2: redis-benchmark -t set -r 10000 -d 33000 -n 10000.
Then slave hung after 10 seconds.
Technically speaking we don't really need to put the master client in
the clients that need to be processed, since in practice the PING
commands from the master will take care, however it is conceptually more
sane to do so.
Technically speaking we don't really need to put the master client in
the clients that need to be processed, since in practice the PING
commands from the master will take care, however it is conceptually more
sane to do so.
Technically speaking we don't really need to put the master client in
the clients that need to be processed, since in practice the PING
commands from the master will take care, however it is conceptually more
sane to do so.
Processing command from the master while the slave is in busy state is
not correct, however we cannot, also, just reply -BUSY to the
replication stream commands from the master. The correct solution is to
stop processing data from the master, but just accumulate the stream
into the buffers and resume the processing later.
Related to #5297.
Processing command from the master while the slave is in busy state is
not correct, however we cannot, also, just reply -BUSY to the
replication stream commands from the master. The correct solution is to
stop processing data from the master, but just accumulate the stream
into the buffers and resume the processing later.
Related to #5297.
Processing command from the master while the slave is in busy state is
not correct, however we cannot, also, just reply -BUSY to the
replication stream commands from the master. The correct solution is to
stop processing data from the master, but just accumulate the stream
into the buffers and resume the processing later.
Related to #5297.
