Depth-first search ledger walking #3324
Conversation
Signed-off-by: theohax <theo@nano.org>
Signed-off-by: theohax <theo@nano.org>
Signed-off-by: theohax <theo@nano.org>
Signed-off-by: theohax <theo@nano.org>
Signed-off-by: theohax <theo@nano.org>
Signed-off-by: theohax <theo@nano.org>
|
Adding @thsfs at reviewers -- let me know if integrating diskhash from their public repository and building it like this makes sense to you too. And, of course, as per discussed, having our own fork of it does not sound like a bad idea :D. |
Having our own repository for this is not required for now. It'd be in case we need to send changes to it (when we do), or for safety, as this code seems to be maintained by a few people. |
| nano::account_info account_info{}; | ||
| ASSERT_FALSE (node->ledger.store.account.get (transaction, key.pub, account_info)); | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: check issue with account head |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd prefer not adding it as it won't run, rather we could add an issue on GitHub to track this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are a couple of extra type of checks for unit tests that for some reason do not work as I expected them to. The ledger walker is most likely going to be changed again soon anyways (in different PR) so I don't think this would sit around too much commented out, but yeah maybe I should just take it out? @clemahieu what do you think?
|
@thsfs @clemahieu one more review/approval after last pushes please, thx. |
This is the first iteration of the algorithm. Planning to add disk-based hashtables to it and bloom filters at some point but first to get it stable, well tested and profiled.