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.
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.
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.
