To avoid copying buffers to create a large Redis Object which
exceeding PROTO_IOBUF_LEN 32KB, we just read the remaining data
we need, which may less than PROTO_IOBUF_LEN. But the remaining
len may be zero, if the bulklen+2 equals sdslen(c->querybuf),
in client pause context.
For example:
Time1:
python
>>> import os, socket
>>> server="127.0.0.1"
>>> port=6379
>>> data1="*3\r\n$3\r\nset\r\n$1\r\na\r\n$33000\r\n"
>>> data2="".join("x" for _ in range(33000)) + "\r\n"
>>> data3="\n\n"
>>> s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
>>> s.settimeout(10)
>>> s.connect((server, port))
>>> s.send(data1)
28
Time2:
redis-cli client pause 10000
Time3:
>>> s.send(data2)
33002
>>> s.send(data3)
2
>>> s.send(data3)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
socket.error: [Errno 104] Connection reset by peer
To fix that, we should check if remaining is greater than zero.
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.
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.
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.
Few tests had borderline thresholds that were adjusted.
The slave buffers test had two issues, preventing the slave buffer from growing:
1) the slave didn't necessarily go to sleep on time, or woke up too early,
now using SIGSTOP to make sure it goes to sleep exactly when we want.
2) the master disconnected the slave on timeout
Note: this breaks backward compatibility with Redis 4, since now slaves
by default are exact copies of masters and do not try to evict keys
independently.
Function setProtocolError just records proctocol error
details in server log, set client as CLIENT_CLOSE_AFTER_REPLY.
It doesn't care about querybuf sdsrange, because we
will do it after procotol parsing.
This is an optimization for processing pipeline, we discussed a
problem in issue #5229: clients may be paused if we apply `CLIENT
PAUSE` command, and then querybuf may grow too large, the cost of
memmove in sdsrange after parsing a completed command will be
horrible. The optimization is that parsing all commands in queyrbuf
, after that we can just call sdsrange only once.
This may look a little pointless (and it is a complete no-op change here)
but as package maintainers need to modify these lines to actually
daemonize (etc. etc) but it's far preferable if the diff is restricted to
actually changing just that bit, not adding docs, etc. The less diff the
better, in general.
Signed-off-by: Chris Lamb <chris@chris-lamb.co.uk>
This should be able to find new bugs and regressions about the new
sorted set update function when ZADD is used to update an element
already existing.
The test is able to find the bug fixed at 2f282aee immediately.
When the element new score is the same of prev/next node, the
lexicographical order kicks in, so we can safely update the node in
place only when the new score is strictly between the adjacent nodes
but never equal to one of them.
Technically speaking we could do extra checks to make sure that even if the
score is the same as one of the adjacent nodes, we can still update on
place, but this rarely happens, so probably not a good deal to make it
more complex.
Related to #5179.
