Hey, You really don't need to test this: I'm telling you flatly, as an author of this software and all of the documentation for it, that you should absolutely not rely on that pattern. I'm trying to save you some time.
The pattern that is slightly better is written explicitly in pseudocode in the link I gave you several times in the issue. Please use it. Thanks, -Dormando On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Nishant Varma wrote: > Can anyone help me peer review this script > https://gist.github.com/varmanishant/0129286d41038cc21471652a6460a5ff that > demonstrate potential problems with get set if it is used > to implement distributed locking. I was suggested to modify from get set to > add in this thread https://github.com/memcached/memcached/issues/163. However > I wanted a small > simulation to demonstrate this. > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "memcached" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
