another one weirdness
Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:42:44 +0300
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 09:18:40PM +0400, Antony Dovgal wrote:
> Hi again.
> I've got another one question about flush_all.
> Just found an interesting effect:
> After FLUSH_ALL some subsequent SET's report OK (i.e. "STORED"), but GET's fail.
> But if do FLUSH_ALL and than sleep() for a second, subsequent SET's and GET's work ok.
flush_all should be instantaneous. However, it doesn't actually delete
the items, it just marks them all as obsolete and able to be replaced.
This behaviour seems wrong and I'll try to reproduce and investigate.