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.
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.
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
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 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.
