core/state: introduce stateupdate structure #29530
Conversation
rjl493456442
force-pushed
the
state-update
branch
3 times, most recently
from
8e190d8
to
ea9d92e
Compare
rjl493456442
force-pushed
the
state-update
branch
4 times, most recently
from
005bb86
to
60746bb
Compare
rjl493456442
force-pushed
the
state-update
branch
6 times, most recently
from
354717c
to
bd6b20a
Compare
rjl493456442
force-pushed
the
state-update
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2fe48c1
to
2089fdb
Compare
core/state/state_object.go
Outdated
| // Note, this map will be reset for each transaction before byzantium fork. | ||
| needCommit Storage |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Modified but not yet committed, this sounds a lot like dirtyStorage. Please add some clarification so a reader understands what's different between those two things
rjl493456442
force-pushed
the
state-update
branch
from
2089fdb
to
3d70c5b
Compare
|
This pull request has been deployed full sync for a few days, since the genesis. It can sync more than 16m blocks with no error. |
rjl493456442
force-pushed
the
state-update
branch
from
3d70c5b
to
d940577
Compare
rjl493456442
force-pushed
the
state-update
branch
from
d940577
to
7b1ff9b
Compare
| type accountDelete struct { | ||
| address common.Address // address is the unique account identifier | ||
| origin []byte // origin is the original value of account data in slim-RLP encoding. | ||
| storagesOrigin map[common.Hash][]byte // storagesOrigin stores the original values of mutated slots in prefix-zero-trimmed RLP format. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are these the original values of the mutated slots, or are these all the slots?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the original values of these all the slots
| if prev.Root == types.EmptyRootHash { | ||
| continue | ||
| } | ||
| // Remove storage slots belong to the account. | ||
| // Remove storage slots belonging to the account. | ||
| slots, set, err := s.deleteStorage(addr, addrHash, prev.Root) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nitpick but didn't have a better place to dump it, could you fix the doc of the deleteStorage method to get rid of
"// It could potentially be terminated if the storage size is excessively large, potentially leading to an out-of-memory panic."?
AFAIK since SELFDESTRUCT was dropped, there's no more OOM protection.
This pull request rewrites the statedb by introducing a state update struct.
A state update struct will be constructed once the
statedb.Commitis invoked. It contains all the statechanges caused by previous state transition, e.g.
Instead of committing the state change into state snapshot and trie database blindly, the state update
will be returned and then can be consumed by different state database implementation in different
ways. It gives more flexibilities to design database abstraction for different purposes.
What's more, the statedb has been simplified significantly, especially in state change construction.