Conversation
|
PR ethereum/go-ethereum#19215 was opened by mistake on ethereum, which can be reused if this PR is accepted. |
zelig
left a comment
zelig
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would it not make sense to split this PR and extract the Has/shed related changes?
Yes, I will create a new PR, Has is pretty isolated change. |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func openLDBStore(path string, basekey []byte) (*storage.LDBStore, error) { | ||
| func openLDBStore(path string, basekey []byte) (*localstore.DB, error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could this not be in the localstore pkg as one of the constructors?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, I am not sure that we need it. It only checks if goleveldb data is present in a directory. Is it really necessary to have that check for export and import?
|
I am blocking this PR as it presents much more problems then improvements. From gitter https://gitter.im/ethersphere/hq?at=5c9a376081b15c5e4b8ca43a:
Please, do not review this PR until an alternative solution is presented. |
| if peerPO > po { | ||
| mode = chunk.ModePutRequest | ||
| } else { | ||
| mode = chunk.ModePutSync |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@justelad
- no its not generating more redundancy the rest i dont understand
- it is easy to construct test cases. this is about correctness
| } else { | ||
| depth := d.kad.NeighbourhoodDepth() | ||
| // is the chunk within our area of responsibility? | ||
| if po < depth { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if po >= depth || peerPO < po {
mode = chunk.ModePutSync
} else {
mode = chunk.ModePutRequest
}
```There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, this is more compact representation. I thought that the current one was easier to reason about, but this is good with a comment, as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that is good but you got the comparison wrong, note
po >= depth -> sync
|
Thanks for reviews. @holisticode I have set this PR ready for review, again. Before this gets merged, maybe we should decide about the migration PR that @justelad is working on. If this PR is merged, and released without the migration part, users will not have an option to keep their existing data. |
| db.pullTriggers = make(map[uint8][]chan struct{}) | ||
| // push index contains as yet unsynced chunks | ||
| db.pushIndex, err = db.shed.NewIndex("StoredTimestamp|Hash->nil", shed.IndexFuncs{ | ||
| db.pushIndex, err = db.shed.NewIndex("StoreTimestamp|Hash->Tags", shed.IndexFuncs{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@zelig @justelad do we need to revert this index not to have Tags and remove tags from shed Item?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@janos we definitely need a way to persist tags and I think that this is the correct place to do so. If anything, tags should be removed from chunk.Chunk
There was a problem hiding this comment.
chunk.Chunk does not have reference to Tags, currently. Are you referring to shed.Item or some other code?
| cleanup := func() { | ||
| netStore.Close() | ||
| os.RemoveAll(datadir) | ||
| localStoreCleanup() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why not localStore.Close() too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
netStore.Close() is calling localstore.Close()
| streamer.Close() | ||
| intervalsStore.Close() | ||
| netStore.Close() | ||
| removeDataDir() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
netStore.Close() is calling localstore.Close()
|
@janos I think we can close this. I think we should consider this merged, since it is in the |
|
Yes, thanks, Anton. Closing this PR since it is merged into https://github.com/ethersphere/go-ethereum/tree/swarm-rather-stable branch. |
5 participants
This PR replaces LDBStore with new localstore DB in all parts of the code.
Work needed to be done is migration from legacy data store #1297 and logging and tracing in localstore package. Beside this missing parts, this PR should provide a functional swarm node starting from a blank database.