Fixed a bug that ConnectionPool holds the same Redis client. #79
+34
−2
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
When `pool_size` or `pool_timeout` is passed as an option, `Redis::Rack::Connection` builds a `ConnectionPool`. `ConnectionPool` will execute a given block when there are not enough connections. However, since the calling store is cached in an instance variable, all connections held by the `ConnectionPool` are actually same objects.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
When
pool_sizeorpool_timeoutis passed as an option,Redis::Rack::Connectionbuilds aConnectionPool.ConnectionPoolwill execute a given block when there are not enough connections. However, since the calling store is cached in an instance variable, all connections held by theConnectionPoolare actually same objects.It seems like something fatal would occur, but since there are no reports in the issues, maybe the existing implementation is no problem.
NOTE: This bug does not affect the following users:
threadsafe: true.threadsafeoption.{ pool: ConnectionPool.new(...) }.