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

Extend smart-contracts table for storing decompiled code #1571

Closed
vbaranov opened this issue Mar 15, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1596
Closed

Extend smart-contracts table for storing decompiled code #1571

vbaranov opened this issue Mar 15, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1596
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request Postgres Issues involving Postgres priority: high High priority issues severity: 1 💥 Critical bug that requires immediate attention.

Comments

@vbaranov
Copy link
Member

Extend smart-contracts table.

Add new fields:

  • decompiler_version of type varchar(40)
  • decompiled_code of type text
  • decompiled of type Boolean
@vbaranov vbaranov added enhancement New feature or request db labels Mar 15, 2019
@vbaranov vbaranov added Postgres Issues involving Postgres priority: high High priority issues severity: 1 💥 Critical bug that requires immediate attention. and removed db labels Mar 19, 2019
@vbaranov
Copy link
Member Author

Just for the record: instead of extending smart-contracts table, the decision was made to create a separate table for decompiled smart-contracts: decompiled_smart_contracts

@ghost ghost removed the in progress label Mar 25, 2019
@kolinko
Copy link

kolinko commented Mar 25, 2019

Good choice re: a new table. Decompiled contracts can take some space, so it's probably better to keep them in a separate table.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request Postgres Issues involving Postgres priority: high High priority issues severity: 1 💥 Critical bug that requires immediate attention.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants