1. 15 11月, 2014 1 次提交
    • M
      Lua: Add bitop · 1e501d9f
      Matt Stancliff 提交于
      A few people have written custom C commands because bit
      manipulation isn't exposed through Lua.  Let's give
      them Mike Pall's bitop.
      
      This adds bitop 1.0.2 (2012-05-08) from http://bitop.luajit.org/
      
      bitop is imported as "bit" into the global namespace.
      
      New Lua commands: bit.tobit, bit.tohex, bit.bnot, bit.band, bit.bor, bit.bxor,
      bit.lshift, bit.rshift, bit.arshift, bit.rol, bit.ror, bit.bswap
      
      Verification of working (the asserts would abort on error, so (nil) is correct):
      127.0.0.1:6379> eval "assert(bit.tobit(1) == 1); assert(bit.band(1) == 1); assert(bit.bxor(1,2) == 3); assert(bit.bor(1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128) == 255)" 0
      (nil)
      127.0.0.1:6379> eval 'assert(0x7fffffff == 2147483647, "broken hex literals"); assert(0xffffffff == -1 or 0xffffffff == 2^32-1, "broken hex literals"); assert(tostring(-1) == "-1", "broken tostring()"); assert(tostring(0xffffffff) == "-1" or tostring(0xffffffff) == "4294967295", "broken tostring()")' 0
      (nil)
      
      Tests also integrated into the scripting tests and can be run with:
      ./runtest --single unit/scripting
      
      Tests are excerpted from `bittest.lua` included in the bitop distribution.
      1e501d9f
  2. 01 9月, 2014 1 次提交
  3. 27 8月, 2014 1 次提交
  4. 16 6月, 2014 2 次提交
    • A
      Scripting: regression test for issue #1811. · 258f3cd3
      antirez 提交于
      258f3cd3
    • A
      Fix semantics of Lua calls to SELECT. · ca6b95df
      antirez 提交于
      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.
      ca6b95df
  5. 11 6月, 2014 1 次提交
    • M
      Scripting: Fix regression from #1118 · ba76daa4
      Matt Stancliff 提交于
      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.
      ba76daa4
  6. 06 6月, 2014 1 次提交
  7. 05 6月, 2014 1 次提交
  8. 22 5月, 2014 1 次提交
  9. 20 5月, 2014 1 次提交
  10. 07 5月, 2014 1 次提交
    • A
      Scripting test: check that Lua can call commands rewirting argv. · 80b96bc4
      antirez 提交于
      SPOP, tested in the new test, is among the commands rewritng the
      client->argv argument vector (it gets rewritten as SREM) for command
      replication purposes.
      
      Because of recent optimizations to client->argv caching in the context
      of the Lua internal Redis client, it is important to test for SPOP to be
      callable from Lua without bad effects to the other commands.
      80b96bc4
  11. 13 2月, 2014 1 次提交
  12. 30 8月, 2013 1 次提交
  13. 20 6月, 2013 1 次提交
  14. 19 1月, 2013 1 次提交
    • G
      Fixed many typos. · 1caf0939
      guiquanz 提交于
      Conflicts fixed, mainly because 2.8 has no cluster support / files:
      	00-RELEASENOTES
      	src/cluster.c
      	src/crc16.c
      	src/redis-trib.rb
      	src/redis.h
      1caf0939
  15. 10 1月, 2013 1 次提交
  16. 22 11月, 2012 1 次提交
    • A
      EVALSHA is now case insensitive. · d0570c96
      antirez 提交于
      EVALSHA used to crash if the SHA1 was not lowercase (Issue #783).
      Fixed using a case insensitive dictionary type for the sha -> script
      map used for replication of scripts.
      d0570c96
  17. 22 10月, 2012 1 次提交
    • A
      Differentiate SCRIPT KILL error replies. · ab551808
      antirez 提交于
      When calling SCRIPT KILL currently you can get two errors:
      
      * No script in timeout (busy) state.
      * The script already performed a write.
      
      It is useful to be able to distinguish the two errors, but right now both
      start with "ERR" prefix, so string matching (that is fragile) must be used.
      
      This commit introduces two different prefixes.
      
      -NOTBUSY and -UNKILLABLE respectively to reply with an error when no
      script is busy at the moment, and when the script already executed a
      write operation and can not be killed.
      ab551808
  18. 01 10月, 2012 1 次提交
  19. 28 9月, 2012 1 次提交
    • A
      Scripting: redis.NIL to return nil bulk replies. · e061d797
      antirez 提交于
      Lua arrays can't contain nil elements (see
      http://www.lua.org/pil/19.1.html for more information), so Lua scripts
      were not able to return a multi-bulk reply containing nil bulk
      elements inside.
      
      This commit introduces a special conversion: a table with just
      a "nilbulk" field set to a boolean value is converted by Redis as a nil
      bulk reply, but at the same time for Lua this type is not a "nil" so can
      be used inside Lua arrays.
      
      This type is also assigned to redis.NIL, so the following two forms
      are equivalent and will be able to return a nil bulk reply as second
      element of a three elements array:
      
          EVAL "return {1,redis.NIL,3}" 0
          EVAL "return {1,{nilbulk=true},3}" 0
      
      The result in redis-cli will be:
      
          1) (integer) 1
          2) (nil)
          3) (integer) 3
      e061d797
  20. 17 9月, 2012 1 次提交
    • A
      A reimplementation of blocking operation internals. · f444e2af
      antirez 提交于
      Redis provides support for blocking operations such as BLPOP or BRPOP.
      This operations are identical to normal LPOP and RPOP operations as long
      as there are elements in the target list, but if the list is empty they
      block waiting for new data to arrive to the list.
      
      All the clients blocked waiting for th same list are served in a FIFO
      way, so the first that blocked is the first to be served when there is
      more data pushed by another client into the list.
      
      The previous implementation of blocking operations was conceived to
      serve clients in the context of push operations. For for instance:
      
      1) There is a client "A" blocked on list "foo".
      2) The client "B" performs `LPUSH foo somevalue`.
      3) The client "A" is served in the context of the "B" LPUSH,
      synchronously.
      
      Processing things in a synchronous way was useful as if "A" pushes a
      value that is served by "B", from the point of view of the database is a
      NOP (no operation) thing, that is, nothing is replicated, nothing is
      written in the AOF file, and so forth.
      
      However later we implemented two things:
      
      1) Variadic LPUSH that could add multiple values to a list in the
      context of a single call.
      2) BRPOPLPUSH that was a version of BRPOP that also provided a "PUSH"
      side effect when receiving data.
      
      This forced us to make the synchronous implementation more complex. If
      client "B" is waiting for data, and "A" pushes three elemnents in a
      single call, we needed to propagate an LPUSH with a missing argument
      in the AOF and replication link. We also needed to make sure to
      replicate the LPUSH side of BRPOPLPUSH, but only if in turn did not
      happened to serve another blocking client into another list ;)
      
      This were complex but with a few of mutually recursive functions
      everything worked as expected... until one day we introduced scripting
      in Redis.
      
      Scripting + synchronous blocking operations = Issue #614.
      
      Basically you can't "rewrite" a script to have just a partial effect on
      the replicas and AOF file if the script happened to serve a few blocked
      clients.
      
      The solution to all this problems, implemented by this commit, is to
      change the way we serve blocked clients. Instead of serving the blocked
      clients synchronously, in the context of the command performing the PUSH
      operation, it is now an asynchronous and iterative process:
      
      1) If a key that has clients blocked waiting for data is the subject of
      a list push operation, We simply mark keys as "ready" and put it into a
      queue.
      2) Every command pushing stuff on lists, as a variadic LPUSH, a script,
      or whatever it is, is replicated verbatim without any rewriting.
      3) Every time a Redis command, a MULTI/EXEC block, or a script,
      completed its execution, we run the list of keys ready to serve blocked
      clients (as more data arrived), and process this list serving the
      blocked clients.
      4) As a result of "3" maybe more keys are ready again for other clients
      (as a result of BRPOPLPUSH we may have push operations), so we iterate
      back to step "3" if it's needed.
      
      The new code has a much simpler semantics, and a simpler to understand
      implementation, with the disadvantage of not being able to "optmize out"
      a PUSH+BPOP as a No OP.
      
      This commit will be tested with care before the final merge, more tests
      will be added likely.
      f444e2af
  21. 05 9月, 2012 1 次提交
    • A
      Scripting: Force SORT BY constant determinism inside SORT itself. · 5ddee9b7
      antirez 提交于
      SORT is able to return (faster than when ordering) unordered output if
      the "BY" clause is used with a constant value. However we try to play
      well with scripting requirements of determinism providing always sorted
      outputs when SORT (and other similar commands) are called by Lua
      scripts.
      
      However we used the general mechanism in place in scripting in order to
      reorder SORT output, that is, if the command has the "S" flag set, the
      Lua scripting engine will take an additional step when converting a
      multi bulk reply to Lua value, calling a Lua sorting function.
      
      This is suboptimal as we can do it faster inside SORT itself.
      This is also broken as issue #545 shows us: basically when SORT is used
      with a constant BY, and additionally also GET is used, the Lua scripting
      engine was trying to order the output as a flat array, while it was
      actually a list of key-value pairs.
      
      What we do know is to recognized if the caller of SORT is the Lua client
      (since we can check this using the REDIS_LUA_CLIENT flag). If so, and if
      a "don't sort" condition is triggered by the BY option with a constant
      string, we force the lexicographical sorting.
      
      This commit fixes this bug and improves the performance, and at the same
      time simplifies the implementation. This does not mean I'm smart today,
      it means I was stupid when I committed the original implementation ;)
      5ddee9b7
  22. 31 8月, 2012 1 次提交
  23. 03 6月, 2012 1 次提交
    • A
      EVAL replication test: less false positives. · 3f126567
      antirez 提交于
      wait_for_condition is now used instead of the usual "after 1000" (that
      is the way to sleep in Tcl). This should avoid to find the replica in
      a state where it is loading the RDB in memory, returning -LOADING error.
      
      This test used to fail when running the test over valgrind, due to the
      added latencies.
      3f126567
  24. 27 4月, 2012 1 次提交
  25. 20 4月, 2012 1 次提交
  26. 19 4月, 2012 1 次提交
  27. 13 4月, 2012 3 次提交
  28. 29 3月, 2012 1 次提交
  29. 02 2月, 2012 1 次提交
  30. 31 10月, 2011 1 次提交
  31. 25 10月, 2011 2 次提交
  32. 20 10月, 2011 1 次提交
  33. 27 9月, 2011 1 次提交
  34. 16 7月, 2011 1 次提交
  35. 15 7月, 2011 1 次提交
  36. 25 5月, 2011 1 次提交