Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat(core/redis): Replace client requests with connection pool #5117

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Sep 19, 2024

Conversation

jackyyyyyssss
Copy link
Contributor

Which issue does this PR close?

Replace client requests with connection pools

Closes #.

Rationale for this change

What changes are included in this PR?

Are there any user-facing changes?

@jackyyyyyssss jackyyyyyssss changed the title feat(core/redis): Replace client requests with connection poolsl feat(core/redis): Replace client requests with connection pool Sep 13, 2024
…redis_pool

# Conflicts:
#	core/src/services/redis/backend.rs
@jackyyyyyssss jackyyyyyssss marked this pull request as draft September 13, 2024 03:14
@jackyyyyyssss jackyyyyyssss marked this pull request as ready for review September 13, 2024 04:32
@jackyyyyyssss
Copy link
Contributor Author

image
The CI error in Node.js seems to be not caused by this modification. The latest branch I updated locally did not include my code, and this error still occurs

@Xuanwo
Copy link
Member

Xuanwo commented Sep 14, 2024

The CI error in Node.js seems to be not caused by this modification. The latest branch I updated locally did not include my code, and this error still occurs

That's correct, seems something changed in the js part. Let's me take a look.

@@ -299,26 +290,39 @@ impl Debug for Adapter {
}

impl Adapter {
async fn conn(&self) -> Result<RedisConnection> {
Ok(self
async fn conn(&self) -> Result<bb8::PooledConnection<'_, RedisConnectionManager>> {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi, thanks a lot for this PR first. Have you communicated with the upstream first? I think it's a great feature that upstream might want to merge.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jackyyyyyssss jackyyyyyssss Sep 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for your guidance. I have not yet contacted the upstream. I will try to submit the PR to the upstream to see if they will merge. I will modify and replace the connection pool with the upstream code in the another PR

@Xuanwo
Copy link
Member

Xuanwo commented Sep 17, 2024

image The CI error in Node.js seems to be not caused by this modification. The latest branch I updated locally did not include my code, and this error still occurs

Should be fixed by #5121

Copy link
Member

@Xuanwo Xuanwo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks a lot!

@Xuanwo Xuanwo merged commit f9f31f3 into apache:main Sep 19, 2024
226 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants