no reply patch

Tomash Brechko tomash.brechko at
Tue Feb 5 07:15:32 UTC 2008

On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 19:14:21 -0800, Brian Aker wrote:
> The patch looks fine, though I think you should move this:
> +    if (c->noreply) {
> +        c->noreply = false;
> +        conn_set_state(c, conn_read);
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
> ... to being after the verbose if () since without it debugging  
> problems is going to be a real pain.

Thanks for looking into this.  Re your comment, the piece

    if (settings.verbose > 1)
        fprintf(stderr, ">%d %s\n", c->sfd, str);

is the debug message about what will be send to the client.  But with
'noreply' nothing will be send, so I avoid this message too.  Also,
not seeing the result actually stresses the fast that with 'noreply'
you can't be sure of the command outcome ;).

It could be implemented either way of course, but to my personal taste
(have no technical reasons) this doesn't have to be fixed.  Thanks

> One thought I had with this is that you could use the token you have  
> added to the server as an additional action verb for future commands.

Indeed, the 'more' keyword I mentioned in other mail may be used in
this place, as it is mutually exclusive with 'noreply'.

   Tomash Brechko

More information about the memcached mailing list