Fix client tracking memory overhead calculation #2360
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This should be + instread of *, otherwise it does not make any sense. Signed-off-by: Binbin <[email protected]>
Member
Author
|
I'll try to add a test when i am free. |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## unstable #2360 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 71.42% 71.45% +0.02%
============================================
Files 123 123
Lines 67135 67122 -13
============================================
+ Hits 47952 47962 +10
+ Misses 19183 19160 -23
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
enjoy-binbin
added
the
run-extra-tests
Signed-off-by: Binbin <[email protected]>
zuiderkwast
approved these changes
Jul 22, 2025
Contributor
zuiderkwast
left a comment
zuiderkwast
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch.
We have many flakt tests now? The CI has many failures but not from this PR i think.
enjoy-binbin
commented
Jul 22, 2025
Co-authored-by: Viktor Söderqvist <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Binbin <[email protected]>
Member
Author
yes, there is one failure realted to slot migration, and i push the new PR to fix it (just waitting for Ping to review it), i haven't watched the others yet. |
zuiderkwast
added
the
release-notes
zuiderkwast
pushed a commit
to vitarb/valkey
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 19, 2025
This should be + instread of *, otherwise it does not make any sense. Otherwise we would have to calculate 20 more bytes for each prefix rax node in 64 bits build. Signed-off-by: Binbin <[email protected]>
Merged
zuiderkwast
pushed a commit
to vitarb/valkey
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2025
This should be + instread of *, otherwise it does not make any sense. Otherwise we would have to calculate 20 more bytes for each prefix rax node in 64 bits build. Signed-off-by: Binbin <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Viktor Söderqvist <[email protected]>
zuiderkwast
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2025
This should be + instread of *, otherwise it does not make any sense. Otherwise we would have to calculate 20 more bytes for each prefix rax node in 64 bits build. Signed-off-by: Binbin <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Viktor Söderqvist <[email protected]>
sarthakaggarwal97
pushed a commit
to sarthakaggarwal97/valkey
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 16, 2025
This should be + instread of *, otherwise it does not make any sense. Otherwise we would have to calculate 20 more bytes for each prefix rax node in 64 bits build. Signed-off-by: Binbin <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Viktor Söderqvist <[email protected]>
ranshid
pushed a commit
to ranshid/valkey
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2025
This should be + instread of *, otherwise it does not make any sense. Otherwise we would have to calculate 20 more bytes for each prefix rax node in 64 bits build. Signed-off-by: Binbin <[email protected]>
ranshid
pushed a commit
to ranshid/valkey
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2025
This should be + instread of *, otherwise it does not make any sense. Otherwise we would have to calculate 20 more bytes for each prefix rax node in 64 bits build. Signed-off-by: Binbin <[email protected]>
zuiderkwast
pushed a commit
to zuiderkwast/placeholderkv
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2025
This should be + instread of *, otherwise it does not make any sense. Otherwise we would have to calculate 20 more bytes for each prefix rax node in 64 bits build. Signed-off-by: Binbin <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Viktor Söderqvist <[email protected]>
zuiderkwast
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 1, 2025
This should be + instread of *, otherwise it does not make any sense. Otherwise we would have to calculate 20 more bytes for each prefix rax node in 64 bits build. Signed-off-by: Binbin <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Viktor Söderqvist <[email protected]>
zuiderkwast
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 1, 2025
This should be + instread of *, otherwise it does not make any sense. Otherwise we would have to calculate 20 more bytes for each prefix rax node in 64 bits build. Signed-off-by: Binbin <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This should be + instread of *, otherwise it does not make any sense.
Otherwise we would have to calculate 20 more bytes for each prefix rax
node in 64 bits build.