Skip to content

Update height_expiration_txs to not grow indefinitely #2579

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
Draft
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Update height_expiration_txs to not grow indefinitely #2579

wants to merge 11 commits into from
+52 −14

Conversation

@AurelienFT
Copy link
Contributor

@AurelienFT AurelienFT commented Jan 16, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Linked Issues/PRs

#2564

Description

At a cost of some performance, because we now iterate over an HashSet instead of a Vec, we remove transactions from height_expiration_txs when we prune them and when they are inserted on a block which is the two cases where a transaction can be removed. Maybe we should be clearer on the code where the tx are removed and regroup the behaviour in the same place (#2580)

Checklist

  • Breaking changes are clearly marked as such in the PR description and changelog
  • New behavior is reflected in tests
  • The specification matches the implemented behavior (link update PR if changes are needed)

Before requesting review

  • I have reviewed the code myself
  • I have created follow-up issues caused by this PR and linked them here

@AurelienFT AurelienFT requested a review from a team January 16, 2025 10:42
rafal-ch
rafal-ch reviewed Jan 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
rafal-ch
rafal-ch reviewed Jan 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
@AurelienFT AurelienFT requested a review from rafal-ch January 16, 2025 14:03
rafal-ch
rafal-ch reviewed Jan 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
@AurelienFT AurelienFT requested a review from rafal-ch January 20, 2025 15:53
rafal-ch
rafal-ch previously approved these changes Jan 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@rafal-ch rafal-ch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 👍

rymnc
rymnc reviewed Jan 27, 2025
View reviewed changes
@AurelienFT AurelienFT requested a review from rymnc January 27, 2025 16:26
@AurelienFT AurelienFT self-assigned this Jan 30, 2025
rafal-ch
rafal-ch previously approved these changes Feb 10, 2025
View reviewed changes
@AurelienFT AurelienFT marked this pull request as draft February 24, 2025 07:55
@rafal-ch
Copy link
Contributor

rafal-ch commented Mar 6, 2025

@AurelienFT do we still want this?

@AurelienFT
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rafal-ch Yes but it's low prio so paused for now

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@xgreenx xgreenx Awaiting requested review from xgreenx xgreenx is a code owner

@Dentosal Dentosal Awaiting requested review from Dentosal Dentosal is a code owner

@MitchTurner MitchTurner Awaiting requested review from MitchTurner MitchTurner is a code owner

@rymnc rymnc Awaiting requested review from rymnc

@netrome netrome Awaiting requested review from netrome

@acerone85 acerone85 Awaiting requested review from acerone85

1 more reviewer

@rafal-ch rafal-ch rafal-ch left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 2 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@AurelienFT AurelienFT

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@AurelienFT @rafal-ch @rymnc