Make PruneExecutionDB not depend on consensusDB#4217
Merged
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4217 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 34.96% 33.04% -1.92%
==========================================
Files 483 484 +1
Lines 57556 57664 +108
==========================================
- Hits 20125 19057 -1068
- Misses 33868 35290 +1422
+ Partials 3563 3317 -246 |
Contributor
❌ 6 Tests Failed:
View the top 3 failed tests by shortest run time
📣 Thoughts on this report? Let Codecov know! | Powered by Codecov |
diegoximenes
requested changes
Jan 13, 2026
diegoximenes
assigned
pmikolajczyk41 and
bragaigor and unassigned
diegoximenes and
pmikolajczyk41
Refactor PruneExecutionDB, more specifically findImportantRoots so it does not depend on consensusDB, but only on executionDB Signed-off-by: Igor Braga <5835477+bragaigor@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Igor Braga <5835477+bragaigor@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Igor Braga <5835477+bragaigor@users.noreply.github.com>
bragaigor
force-pushed
the
braga/no-consensus-for-prune
branch
from
a59d76b to
4965575
Compare
Signed-off-by: Igor Braga <5835477+bragaigor@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Igor Braga <5835477+bragaigor@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Igor Braga <5835477+bragaigor@users.noreply.github.com>
bragaigor
assigned
pmikolajczyk41 and
diegoximenes and unassigned
bragaigor and
pmikolajczyk41
diegoximenes
requested changes
Feb 5, 2026
Contributor
diegoximenes
left a comment
diegoximenes
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Almost there 🙂, just some test nitpicks
Comment on lines
+315
to
+318
| // Create a safety buffer (+/- 2 blocks) around the expected prune point. | ||
| // Due to synchronization latency, the second node's state may vary slightly, | ||
| // making the exact availability of these boundary blocks non-deterministic. | ||
| if i >= checkUntilBlock-2 && i <= checkUntilBlock+2 { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't fully understand this, but it is only a test so it is OK to have it here.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah I'm fully 100% sure what causes these fluctuations but that's my best guess where sometimes blocks in the range [balanceShouldntExistUntilBlock-1, balanceShouldntExistUntilBlock+1] might or might not have been persisted to trieDB, so to be safe I did a +/-2 window.
Signed-off-by: Igor Braga <5835477+bragaigor@users.noreply.github.com>
diegoximenes
requested changes
Feb 6, 2026
Signed-off-by: Igor Braga <5835477+bragaigor@users.noreply.github.com>
diegoximenes
approved these changes
Feb 9, 2026
tsahee
approved these changes
Feb 28, 2026
|
|
||
| validatorDB := rawdb.NewTable(consensusDB, storage.BlockValidatorPrefix) | ||
| lastValidated, err := staker.ReadLastValidatedInfo(validatorDB) | ||
| data, err := executionDB.Get(gethexec.ValidatedBlockHashKey) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wrap the error so the user will understand that "validator" prune mode cannot work for a node that has not been used as validator
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(old behavior wouldn've been to just not try saving another block but I think it's better as you wrote it, especially since nodes that have a database before the change don't have that key in db even if they do work as validators)
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
Refactor
PruneExecutionDB, more specificallyfindImportantRootsso it does not depend onconsensusDB, but only onexecutionDB. The former PruneExecutionDB used to depend on consensusDB for 2 things:Prunemode"validator"staker.ReadLastValidatedInfoPrunemode"minimal"For the replacements we use:
executionDBto store such validated block using keyLastValidatedBlockHashKeyexecutionDB.Put(validatedBlockHashKey, ...toSetFinalityDatato store latest validated blockrawdb.ReadFinalizedBlockHashandrawdb.ReadHeaderNumberto get finalized block number and hashCloses NIT-4266