Support block gap created by fast sync #5703
Open
+83
−30
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
Primarily move the block gap handling into a separate block, zero logical changes.
dmitry-markin
approved these changes
Sep 18, 2024
|
I don't believe supporting this conversion is necessary unless we encounter a specific use case that justifies it. Currently, the conceptual model is straightforward: gaps are caused either by warp sync or fast sync, but not both simultaneously. From my point of view, warp sync is typically the preferred method, with fast sync used only when warp sync is unsupported by the chain. Users are generally expected to choose one sync strategy, rather than a mix of the two. Adding support for converting gaps between the two could introduce unnecessary complexity without clear benefits. |
|
Ping @bkchr In addition, some insights in terms of the edge case in #5663 (comment) would also be appreciated. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 is part 2 of #5406 (comment), properly handling the block gap generated during fast sync.
Although #5406 remains unresolved due to the known issues in #5663, I decided to open up this PR earlier than later to speed up the overall progress. I've tested the fast sync locally with this PR, and it appears to be functioning well. (I was doing a fast sync from a discontinued archive node locally, thus the issue highlighted in #5663 (comment) was bypassed exactly.)
Once the edge cases in #5663 are addressed, we can move forward by removing the body attribute from the LightState block request and complete the work on #5406. The changes in this PR are incremental, so reviewing commit by commit should provide the best clarity.
cc @dmitry-markin