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

Remove consensus hash #17709

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Remove consensus hash #17709

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mystenmark
Copy link
Contributor

@mystenmark mystenmark commented May 13, 2024

The sui-side hash is no longer necessary now that the commit prologue contains the consensus commit hash. If consensus forks, we will immediately observe a checkpoint fork.

Copy link

vercel bot commented May 13, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
sui-docs ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback May 13, 2024 9:33pm
3 Ignored Deployments
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
multisig-toolkit ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview May 13, 2024 9:33pm
sui-kiosk ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview May 13, 2024 9:33pm
sui-typescript-docs ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview May 13, 2024 9:33pm

@mystenmark mystenmark changed the title Remove Sui consensus hash. It is no longer necessary now that the commit prologue contains the consensus commit hash Remove consensus hash May 13, 2024
…mit prologue contains the consensus commit hash
@@ -231,7 +241,6 @@ impl ConsensusStatsAPI for ConsensusStatsV1 {
#[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Clone, Debug, Default, PartialEq, Eq)]
pub struct ExecutionIndicesWithStats {
pub index: ExecutionIndices,
pub hash: u64,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we keep this for db compatibility as well?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ah, didn't notice they were both in the db

@mwtian
Copy link
Member

mwtian commented May 13, 2024

Right now the checkpoint fork message does not give very clear indication of which consensus subdag has the fork. We actually just used this log message to debug a crash recovery issue. Maybe wait a bit until we have better logging inside consensus for forks?

@mystenmark
Copy link
Contributor Author

Right now the checkpoint fork message does not give very clear indication of which consensus subdag has the fork. We actually just used this log message to debug a crash recovery issue. Maybe wait a bit until we have better logging inside consensus for forks?

sounds good!

@akichidis
Copy link
Contributor

Right now the checkpoint fork message does not give very clear indication of which consensus subdag has the fork. We actually just used this log message to debug a crash recovery issue. Maybe wait a bit until we have better logging inside consensus for forks?

sounds good!

Right now the checkpoint fork message does not give very clear indication of which consensus subdag has the fork. We actually just used this log message to debug a crash recovery issue. Maybe wait a bit until we have better logging inside consensus for forks?

sounds good!

Apart from the enhanced logging I would suggest for us to implement the consensus_digest for Mysticeti before we remove the hash anyways. I just realised actually that we never did.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants