Fix ZMQ Tx Pruning #9370
Merged
Fix ZMQ Tx Pruning #9370
+7
−4
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
iamamyth
reviewed
Jun 18, 2024
vtnerd
force-pushed
the
fix/zmq_tx_pruning
branch
from
8722356
to
9fc48f4
Compare
|
Force pushed a much smaller changeset. |
iamamyth
approved these changes
Jun 21, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
When requesting pruned txes over ZMQ, the txes aren't fully pruned. This is due to a quirk in the unpacking of txes - the pruned elements are still read into the local tx. Fixing this is a bit more involved. The ZMQ output code then has no context/flag for
prunein the signature portion (because it assumes the signatures wouldn't have been unpacked in. a pruned tx).This is a simple hack that passes the prune information from the base tx into the next function call. This allows for full pruning, which saves on bandwidth, output time, and read time.
I have verified locally (with LWS) that this output is still valid.