-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 653
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[NEW] Consolidate wait states #427
Comments
PingXie
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 31, 2024
There are currently three block types: BLOCKED_WAIT, BLOCKED_WAITAOF, and BLOCKED_WAIT_PREREPL, used to block clients executing `WAIT`, `WAITAOF`, and `CLUSTER SETSLOT`, respectively. They share the same workflow: the client is blocked until replication to the expected number of replicas completes. However, they provide different responses depending on the commands involved. Using distinct block types leads to code duplication and reduced readability. This PR consolidates the three types into a single WAIT type, differentiating them using the pending command to ensure the appropriate response is returned. Fix #427 --------- Signed-off-by: Ping Xie <[email protected]>
naglera
pushed a commit
to naglera/placeholderkv
that referenced
this issue
Jun 10, 2024
There are currently three block types: BLOCKED_WAIT, BLOCKED_WAITAOF, and BLOCKED_WAIT_PREREPL, used to block clients executing `WAIT`, `WAITAOF`, and `CLUSTER SETSLOT`, respectively. They share the same workflow: the client is blocked until replication to the expected number of replicas completes. However, they provide different responses depending on the commands involved. Using distinct block types leads to code duplication and reduced readability. This PR consolidates the three types into a single WAIT type, differentiating them using the pending command to ensure the appropriate response is returned. Fix valkey-io#427 --------- Signed-off-by: Ping Xie <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Originally posted by @madolson in #245 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: