Do not start idle timer when lazy connection is already closed #110
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When an operation fails because the underlying connection is closed, we should never start an idle timer. There used to be a race condition that the connection close event was detected before cancelling the pending commands. We avoid this by checking the connection state before starting an idle timer when an operation fails.
WyriHaximus
approved these changes
May 19, 2019
jsor
approved these changes
May 20, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When an operation fails because the underlying connection is closed, we
should never start an idle timer. There used to be a race condition that
the connection close event was detected before cancelling the pending
commands. We avoid this by checking the connection state before starting
an idle timer when an operation fails.
Closes #107 and #106, thanks @choval for reporting!