Repository navigation
db: atomic per-key prune deletion, prune consistency assertion #20503
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
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e335bd5
snapshots: align state files to block file boundary on startup
c546351
snapshots: fix lint — use dir.RemoveFile, remove dead code
cf35a3c
snapshots: address review feedback on alignment check
26c538f
snapshots: skip alignment when chaindata has execution progress
54910fc
snapshots: add unit tests for alignment helpers
82b47fa
snapshots: use TxNums index check instead of stageProgress
f39ca2f
snapshots: align state files to block file boundary on startup
4af2f83
db: atomic per-key prune deletion, ViewID fix, collation step assertion
mh0lt 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
we can try. but it will lead to unpredictable prune time on chain-tip.
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.
also unclear - what will happen with non-dupsort tables (they can have exactly same keys/values amount like dup-sort tables - means non-dupsort tables still can have garbage)
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.
we can try. but it will lead to unpredictable prune time on chain-tip.-- yes, we did have atomic per-key prune deletion; but moved away from it because we couldn't prune commitment history this way.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.
we did have atomic per-key prune deletion- we had another sort of "atomic per key" where erigon did delete "all domains for given txNum" and it way more data than "just domain per-key atomicity".