fix for missing block under certain startup conditions #3555
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Going to merge this. Its a small change to node init code, making it more failure tolerant. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR fixes a "cannot find block" error that can occur during node startup.
We have some code that runs during node initialization that exercises the PIBD segmenter as we wanted to keep this code "in use".
There is an edge case during startup that we did not account for - if the node is shutdown while it is in the process of syncing then on next startup the chain can find itself in a state where traversing back to the "archive header" (our 720 block archival period) can fail as we do not have the full set of blocks for this time period yet.
This PR simply ensures the code that touches the segmenter does not fail in this situation (during startup).
This is related to a jump from one 720 block archive period to the next due to chain height, during sync. It is possible for the jump to result in "missing" blocks as we are still syncing. This is not a problem with data integrity or missing data - its just that we were making a bad assumption during node initialization without accounting for this scenario.
Resolves #3516