Madelyn Olson
Madelyn Olson
> How about my future based proposal? In contrast to fire-and-forget, every submission will return a stub, so we can query the task completion by the stub, or submit new...
> In most cases, the future capability would not be needed. We could make the "future" part optional, only incurring the overhead when something more than fire-and-forget is needed. However,...
> doesn't that mean merge a PR that introduces a bug into redis? I don't know if this was specifically targeting to be the solution to `WAITAOF`. We definitely need...
@JimB123 When you get a chance, move this PR to https://github.com/placeholderkv/placeholderkv
LGTM, would you be willing go fufill the requirements for the DCO: see https://github.com/valkey-io/valkey/pull/244/checks?check_run_id=23522452959
For now we will not merge it. @ranshid will decide how we are supposed to annotate this.
Ok, it seems like folks in the monday meeting we were aligned about moving it to memory, but there some concerns about the change from `ull2string` -> `ll2string` which might...
@satheeshaGowda I think this is a good feature to work on. Based on the last discussion, I think the two important things to incorporate are: 1. Not re-loading the certificate...
@sjpotter Can you add a more detailed explanation for why these APIs are needed and what use case they are solving.
Thanks for investigating this implementation. We discussed it in our weekly meeting, and have some open questions. 1. Performance: How much CPU does it take to perform the crc16 or...