Summary:
There are currently some preprocessor checks that assume support for Visual Studio versions older than 2015 (i.e., 0 < _MSC_VER < 1900), although we don't support them any more.
We removed all code that only compiles on those older versions, except third-party/ files.
The ROCKSDB_NOEXCEPT symbol is now obsolete, since it now always gets replaced by noexcept. We removed it.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10065
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D36721901
Pulled By: guidotag
fbshipit-source-id: a2892d365ef53cce44a0a7d90dd6b72ee9b5e5f2
Summary:
Old typedef syntax is confusing
Most but not all changes with
perl -pi -e 's/typedef (.*) ([a-zA-Z0-9_]+);/using $2 = $1;/g' list_of_files
make format
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8751
Test Plan: existing
Reviewed By: zhichao-cao
Differential Revision: D30745277
Pulled By: pdillinger
fbshipit-source-id: 6f65f0631c3563382d43347896020413cc2366d9
Summary:
When dynamically linking two binaries together, different builds of RocksDB from two sources might cause errors. To provide a tool for user to solve the problem, the RocksDB namespace is changed to a flag which can be overridden in build time.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/6433
Test Plan: Build release, all and jtest. Try to build with ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE with another flag.
Differential Revision: D19977691
fbshipit-source-id: aa7f2d0972e1c31d75339ac48478f34f6cfcfb3e
Summary:
Exposing persistent cache stats (counters) to the user via public API.
Closes https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/1485
Differential Revision: D4155274
Pulled By: siying
fbshipit-source-id: 30a9f50
Summary: Enabled build in Windows and corresponding fixes
Test Plan:
Compile and run persistent_cache_test in Windows and make check in
Linux
Reviewers: sdong
Subscribers: andrewkr, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D59307
Summary:
This provides provides an implementation of PersistentCacheTier that is
specialized for RAM. This tier does not persist data though.
Why do we need this tier ?
This is ideal as tier 0. This tier can host data that is too hot.
Why can't we use Cache variants ?
Yes you can use them instead. This tier can potentially outperform BlockCache
in RAW mode by virtue of compression and compressed cache in block cache doesn't
seem very popular. Potentially this tier can be modified to under stand the
disadvantage of the tier below and retain data that the tier below is bad at
handling (for example index and bloom data that is huge in size)
Test Plan: Run unit tests added
Subscribers: andrewkr, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D57069
tagliavini