Fix sentinel mode read-write separation #749
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #749 +/- ##
========================================
- Coverage 63.2% 63.2% -0.0%
========================================
Files 43 43
Lines 3223 3231 +8
Branches 244 244
========================================
+ Hits 2034 2039 +5
- Misses 1172 1175 +3
Partials 17 17
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
JackiLin
force-pushed
the
read-write-separation
branch
from
f7d1ac0 to
9e56f92
Compare
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
| # so it doesn't interfere with the SentinelConnectionPool constructor | ||
| if "is_master" in query_params: | ||
| del query_params["is_master"] | ||
| new_query = urlencode(query_params, doseq=True) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why do you need this if you deleted the key from the original query_params variable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this parameter is not deleted, it cannot be correctly parsed as bool type in redis-py, but as str type. This will cause it to use the master node for reading and writing even if is_master=0 is set.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please merge master into your branch and solve conflicts then
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have merged and resolved the conflicts
When I attempted to set up read-write separation in Sentinel mode by configuring redis://redis-master/db?is_master=0, I noticed that both read and write requests were still being directed to the master node, without any separation. After reviewing and debugging the source code, I found that the issue was due to redis-py being unable to correctly parse the is_master parameter, and there was also an error in how the project handled is_master. The pool.is_master was only set to False after retrieving the redis.sentinel.SentinelConnectionPool object from redis-py, which resulted in the system supposedly using the slave node, but actually using the master node.
