Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Same behaviour with Redis freshly cloned from github. Here is the info output:
redis_version:1.1.91
arch_bits:64
multiplexing_api:kqueue
uptime_in_seconds:42
uptime_in_days:0
connected_clients:1
connected_slaves:0
used_memory:868528
changes_since_last_save:1
bgsave_in_progress:0
last_save_time:1260814764
total_connections_received:545
total_commands_processed:549
role:master
Are there any update/planned-patch for that inconsistency?
Original comment by jcout...@gmail.com
on 14 Dec 2009 at 6:20
Hello, this is a feature, what should be patched is the documentation I guess,
or I'm
missing something? :)
Original comment by anti...@gmail.com
on 14 Dec 2009 at 6:58
What I meant was this command should return either a status code reply or an
integer
code reply, because as it is right now, it sort of depends...
If we refer back to the original bug report by r.geoghegan, it clearly shows 2
type of
reply returned by this command. Or maybe I am missing something too? :)
Original comment by jcout...@gmail.com
on 14 Dec 2009 at 7:10
I had a look at the code, and the issue is a bit more complicated. The current
behavior is that if any of the keys
given to intersect does not exist, deletes the destination key and returns +OK.
This is very logical in a sort of
SQL sense where Null + Not Null = Null, so None intersection Some Set = None.
I propose that SINTERSTORE, if given a non-existing key, deletes the
destination key and returns :0, which
should be in line with most replies from SINTERSTORE. I have attached a patch
to that effect.
Original comment by r.geoghe...@gmail.com
on 15 Dec 2009 at 4:41
Attachments:
You are right, fixed: I just swapped the shared.ok with shared.czero that
should be like
what r.geoghegan proposed, this error is the result of a behavior change of
SINTERSTORE at some time, it used to return just +OK, but now it returns the
size of the
intersection... but I clearly forgot to change this line of code. Now I'm
adding a
regression test for this.
Thanks!
Original comment by anti...@gmail.com
on 15 Dec 2009 at 9:07
Great! Thank you very much, both of you!
Original comment by jcout...@gmail.com
on 15 Dec 2009 at 11:08
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
r.geoghe...@gmail.com
on 10 Dec 2009 at 11:58