fix(python): increase redis retry strategy backoff #2546
Merged
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
klaemo
changed the title
Closed
1 task
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2024
## [5.7.6](v5.7.5...v5.7.6) (2024-04-27) ### Bug Fixes * **redis-connection:** increase redis retry strategy backoff ([#2546](#2546)) [python] ([6cf7712](6cf7712)) ### Performance Improvements * **worker:** do not call bzpopmin when blockDelay is lower or equal 0 ([#2544](#2544)) ref [#2466](#2466) ([9760b85](9760b85))
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
As you can see in the redis-py docs the
ExponentialBackoffstarts with 8ms and ramps up to only 512ms. Paired with only three retries this makes it fail very quickly.I increased the values to start with 1s and ramp up to 20s. Also, increased the retries to 20. I think this brings it closer to the JavaScript library.
Related to my issue: #2542