We only want to use the last STORE key, but we have to record
we actually found a STORE key so we can increment the final return
key count.
Test added to prevent further regression.
Closes#1883, #1645, #1647
Previously the end was casted to a smaller type
which resulted in a wrong check and failed
with values larger than handled by unsigned.
Closes#1847, #1844
In the test we use WAIT when the master and slave are up, and only later the
partition is created killing the master, so we are sure we don't incur
in failure modes that may lose writes in this test: the goal here is to
make sure that the elected slave was replicating correctly with the
master.
In the initialization test for each instance we used to unregister the
old master and register it again to clear the config.
However there is a race condition doing this: as soon as we unregister
and re-register "mymaster", another Sentinel can update the new
configuration with the old state because of gossip "hello" messages.
So the correct procedure is instead, unregister "mymaster" from all the
sentinel instances, and re-register it everywhere again.
Lua scripts are executed in the context of the currently selected
database (as selected by the caller of the script).
However Lua scripts are also free to use the SELECT command in order to
affect other DBs. When SELECT is called frm Lua, the old behavior, before
this commit, was to automatically set the Lua caller selected DB to the
last DB selected by Lua. See for example the following sequence of
commands:
SELECT 0
SET x 10
EVAL "redis.call('select','1')" 0
SET x 20
Before this commit after the execution of this sequence of commands,
we'll have x=10 in DB 0, and x=20 in DB 1.
Because of the problem above, there was a bug affecting replication of
Lua scripts, because of the actual implementation of replication. It was
possible to fix the implementation of Lua scripts in order to fix the
issue, but looking closely, the bug is the consequence of the behavior
of Lua ability to set the caller's DB.
Under the old semantics, a script selecting a different DB, has no simple
ways to restore the state and select back the previously selected DB.
Moreover the script auhtor must remember that the restore is needed,
otherwise the new commands executed by the caller, will be executed in
the context of a different DB.
So this commit fixes both the replication issue, and this hard-to-use
semantics, by removing the ability of Lua, after the script execution,
to force the caller to switch to the DB selected by the Lua script.
The new behavior of the previous sequence of commadns is to just set
X=20 in DB 0. However Lua scripts are still capable of writing / reading
from different DBs if needed.
WARNING: This is a semantical change that will break programs that are
conceived to select the client selected DB via Lua scripts.
This fixes issue #1811.
The new check-for-number behavior of Lua arguments broke
users who use large strings of just integers.
The Lua number check would convert the string to a number, but
that breaks user data because
Lua numbers have limited precision compared to an arbitrarily
precise number wrapped in a string.
Regression fixed and new test added.
Fixes#1118 again.
