-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use spawn_blocking to increase request throughput #243
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the addition of this error type means we should do a minor version bump.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html#enum-variant-new looks like major is actually the recommendation for adding more variants to an enum, should probably do that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a cool page @skeet70, hadn't seen that before. It makes sense that it's considered a breaking change because someone matching over it would need to include the new type for the match to be exhaustive. Should we do a major bump or work to avoid that? If someone has a recommendation for an existing variant that works, I could use that.
If we do bump major, we could consider adding
#[non_exhaustive]
onto it so that we're free to add new variants in the future without a major bump.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was also wondering about
non_exhaustive
. I also realized, looking at this, that we would be adding a tokio error to our public API. We already expose error from ring and protobuf, but maybe we should stop doing that.The chances of a consumer enumerating all of these error types in a
match
is effectively zero, so maybe allowing non-exhaustive would be fine.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/attributes/type_system.html#the-non_exhaustive-attribute for reference. In TSP code recently I wrote that
matches!
that enumerates the couple that mattered to me there and ignored the rest. AFAIKnon_exhaustive
would just always force people to do something with the "rest" even if they've enumerated everything that exists right now. I don't think that would've affected my code. It could be a minor annoyance if you really did want to be exhaustive (and know you were) but I can't think of a use case where you wouldn't be able to have some catch all fallback at the application level.https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2008-non-exhaustive.html#enums the RFC for it explicitly called out error types being the most common use case.
I think we make this
non_exhaustive
.