Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Avoid calling the full update loop when only validator description has changed #1815

Closed
cwgoes opened this issue Jul 25, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed

Avoid calling the full update loop when only validator description has changed #1815

cwgoes opened this issue Jul 25, 2018 · 1 comment
Assignees
@ValarDragon
Labels
C:x/staking

Comments

@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor

cwgoes commented Jul 25, 2018

On handleMsgEditValidator, we presently run stakeKeeper.UpdateValidator, which runs the full power update logic - as far as I can tell, this is unnecessary, since only the description has changed. All we need to do is write the primary record in the store.

cc @rigelrozanski
@cwgoes cwgoes changed the title Avoid calling the full update loop when validator description is changed Avoid calling the full update loop when only validator description has changed Jul 25, 2018
@rigelrozanski
Copy link
Contributor

Good catch - easy implementation

@ValarDragon ValarDragon self-assigned this Jul 28, 2018
ValarDragon added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 28, 2018
@ValarDragon
x/stake: Speed up handleMsgEditValidator
0bb3497 
This removes running the power update logic on handleMsgEditValidator,
as its unnecessary.

Closes #1815
@ValarDragon ValarDragon mentioned this issue Jul 28, 2018
Merged
9 tasks
chillyvee pushed a commit to chillyvee/cosmos-sdk that referenced this issue Mar 1, 2024
@okwme
chore: update broken link (cosmos#1815)
0b27810
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@ValarDragon ValarDragon

Labels
C:x/staking
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@ValarDragon @rigelrozanski @cwgoes