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.

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

[EpochSync] Change EpochSyncInfo to V3 design specification #10030

Closed
Tracked by #9581
posvyatokum opened this issue Oct 30, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed
Tracked by #9581

[EpochSync] Change EpochSyncInfo to V3 design specification #10030

posvyatokum opened this issue Oct 30, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@posvyatokum
Copy link
Member

Change EpochSyncInfo to include:

  • Several BlockHeaders: first, and range of last headers until last finalized block (as recorded in the last header of the epoch)
  • Supporting headers for all of these headers – headers of the last finalized block for each header
  • Three EpochInfos: current, next, and next next
  • All block hashes of the epoch
@posvyatokum posvyatokum self-assigned this Oct 30, 2023
@gmilescu gmilescu changed the title Change EpochSyncInfo to V3 design specification [EpochSync] Change EpochSyncInfo to V3 design specification Oct 30, 2023
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 3, 2023
#10030 

Changing EpochSyncInfo to contain all data outlined in
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14Itc9Hs7ewTRmcGANid9UCaYcJzaLzzM7FsvYYIFKDY/edit#heading=h.oixofhftbu1p

Blocking generation of epoch block hashes is a known problem.
IMO this is not a problem for header sync. Still, during regular block
processing it is not ideal to spend additional time reading something
that should have been saved in memory during the epoch.
I will change this part after I have an epoch sync node setup that
allows for realistic delay estimation.
In the meantime the only optimisation is to collect this information
from BlockInfos rather than from BlockHeaders, as BlockInfos is a much
smaller column.

---------

Co-authored-by: nikurt <[email protected]>
@posvyatokum
Copy link
Member Author

Created a follow-up issue #10082 based on current implementation #10081.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant