- 28 Jul, 2017 2 commits
-
-
Felix Krause authored
-
antirez authored
-
- 24 Jul, 2017 8 commits
-
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo authored
Don't use extended Regexp Syntax
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo authored
Check that the whole first argument is a number
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo authored
Correct proceding -> proceeding typo.
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo authored
fix rewrite config: auto-aof-rewrite-min-size
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo authored
Fix missing '-' in redis-benchmark help output (Issue #1996)
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo authored
fix mismatch argument and return wrong value of clusterDelNodeSlots
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo authored
Fix lua ldb command log
-
liangsijian authored
-
- 23 Jul, 2017 2 commits
-
-
antirez authored
Lua scripting does not support calling blocking commands, however all the native Redis commands are flagged as "s" (no scripting flag), so this is not possible at all. With modules there is no such mechanism in order to flag a command as non callable by the Lua scripting engine, moreover we cannot trust the modules users from complying all the times: it is likely that modules will be released to have blocking commands without such commands being flagged correctly, even if we provide a way to signal this fact. This commit attempts to address the problem in a short term way, by detecting that a module is trying to block in the context of the Lua scripting engine client, and preventing to do this. The module will actually believe to block as usually, but what happens is that the Lua script receives an error immediately, and the background call is ignored by the Redis engine (if not for the cleanup callbacks, once it unblocks). Long term, the more likely solution, is to introduce a new call called RedisModule_GetClientFlags(), so that a command can detect if the caller is a Lua script, and return an error, or avoid blocking at all. Being the blocking API experimental right now, more work is needed in this regard in order to reach a level well blocking module commands and all the other Redis subsystems interact peacefully. Now the effect is like the following: 127.0.0.1:6379> eval "redis.call('hello.block',1,5000)" 0 (error) ERR Error running script (call to f_b5ba35ff97bc1ef23debc4d6e9fd802da187ed53): @user_script:1: ERR Blocking module command called from Lua script This commit fixes issue #4127 in the short term.
-
antirez authored
-
- 20 Jul, 2017 3 commits
-
-
antirez authored
This function failed when an internal-only flag was set as an only flag in a node: the string was trimmed expecting a final comma before exiting the function, causing a crash. See issue #4142. Moreover generation of flags representation only needed at DEBUG log level was always performed: a waste of CPU time. This is fixed as well by this commit.
-
antirez authored
The function cache was not working at all, and the function returned wrong values if there where two or more modules exporting native data types. See issue #4131 for more details.
-
Leon Chen authored
-
- 18 Jul, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Leon Chen authored
-
- 15 Jul, 2017 1 commit
-
-
WuYunlong authored
-
- 14 Jul, 2017 6 commits
-
-
Chris Lamb authored
-
antirez authored
-
antirez authored
Before this fix the DB currenty selected by the client blocked was not respected and operations were always performed on DB 0.
-
antirez authored
Those calls may be subject to changes in the future, so the user should acknowledge it is using non stable API.
-
antirez authored
Moving to redis-doc repository to publish via Redis.io.
-
antirez authored
-
- 12 Jul, 2017 1 commit
-
-
antirez authored
In Redis 4.0 replication, with the introduction of PSYNC2, masters and slaves replicate commands to cascading slaves and to the replication backlog itself in a different way compared to the past. Masters actually replicate the effects of client commands. Slaves just propagate what they receive from masters. This mechanism can cause problems when the configuration of an instance is changed from master to slave inside a transaction. For instance we could send to a master instance the following sequence: MULTI SLAVEOF 127.0.0.1 0 EXEC SLAVEOF NO ONE Before the fixes in this commit, the MULTI command used to be propagated into the replication backlog, however after the SLAVEOF command the instance is a slave, so the EXEC implementation failed to also propagate the EXEC command. When the slaves of the above instance reconnected, they were incrementally synchronized just sending a "MULTI". This put the master client (in the slaves) into MULTI state, breaking the replication. Notably even Redis Sentinel uses the above approach in order to guarantee that configuration changes are always performed together with rewrites of the configuration and with clients disconnection. Sentiel does: MULTI SLAVEOF ... CONFIG REWRITE CLIENT KILL TYPE normal EXEC So this was a really problematic issue. However even with the fix in this commit, that will add the final EXEC to the replication stream in case the instance was switched from master to slave during the transaction, the result would be to increment the slave replication offset, so a successive reconnection with the new master, will not permit a successful partial resynchronization: no way the new master can provide us with the backlog needed, we incremented our offset to a value that the new master cannot have. However the EXEC implementation waits to emit the MULTI, so that if the commands inside the transaction actually do not need to be replicated, no commands propagation happens at all. From multi.c: if (!must_propagate && !(c->cmd->flags & (CMD_READONLY|CMD_ADMIN))) { execCommandPropagateMulti(c); must_propagate = 1; } The above code is already modified by this commit you are reading. Now also ADMIN commands do not trigger the emission of MULTI. It is actually not clear why we do not just check for CMD_WRITE... Probably I wrote it this way in order to make the code more reliable: better to over-emit MULTI than not emitting it in time. So this commit should indeed fix issue #3836 (verified), however it looks like some reconsideration of this code path is needed in the long term. BONUS POINT: The reverse bug. Even in a read only slave "B", in a replication setup like: A -> B -> C There are commands without the READONLY nor the ADMIN flag, that are also not flagged as WRITE commands. An example is just the PING command. So if we send B the following sequence: MULTI PING SLAVEOF NO ONE EXEC The result will be the reverse bug, where only EXEC is emitted, but not the previous MULTI. However this apparently does not create problems in practice but it is yet another acknowledge of the fact some work is needed here in order to make this code path less surprising. Note that there are many different approaches we could follow. For instance MULTI/EXEC blocks containing administrative commands may be allowed ONLY if all the commands are administrative ones, otherwise they could be denined. When allowed, the commands could simply never be replicated at all.
-
- 11 Jul, 2017 4 commits
- 10 Jul, 2017 5 commits
-
-
antirez authored
In general we do not want before/after sleep() callbacks to be called when we re-enter the event loop, since those calls are only designed in order to perform operations every main iteration of the event loop, and re-entering is often just a way to incrementally serve clietns with error messages or other auxiliary operations. However, if we call the callbacks, we are then forced to think at before/after sleep callbacks as re-entrant, which is much harder without any good need. However here there was also a clear bug: beforeSleep() was actually never called when re-entering the event loop. But the new afterSleep() callback was. This is broken and in this instance re-entering afterSleep() caused a modules GIL dead lock.
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo authored
Modules: Fix io->bytes calculation in RDB save
-
antirez authored
-
Guy Benoish authored
-
antirez authored
-
- 06 Jul, 2017 6 commits
-
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo authored
Sets up fake client to select current db in RM_Call()
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo authored
Optimize addReplyBulkSds for better performance
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo authored
minor fix in listJoin().
-
sunweinan authored
-
antirez authored
Thanks to @oranagra for spotting this bug.
-
antirez authored
-
- 05 Jul, 2017 1 commit
-
-
spinlock authored
-