Replies: 1 comment 2 replies
-
@cheme I didn't have the notifications for this discussion, thanks for reply! I already finish my V1 implementation in this PR Now we are discussing about the benefits of translating Parity's trie crate in golang because our current state storage / trie implementation has some issues and is difficult to scale and mantain. Do you have any concern with that? Thks |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
2 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
@dimartiro , since the substrate repo got archived to switch to polkadot sdk, I couldn't reply to paritytech/substrate#11607 (comment) on the discussion. So I am opening this one here simply to reply (feel free to close/move it when you get this reply if not in the right place).
Substrate code allows going from v1 to v0 (I remember doing it by error in the past on testnet).
But clearly that is not something that should be done ever.
I think we should assume it yes, there is no use in going back to V0.
In substrate, with the way fork work, changes are done in v1 (but changes are just a bunch of new trie nodes and a list of removed nodes by hash), then when we switch back to fork in v0, the changes are just discarded and we are back on a v0 state. (fork changes being kept in memory).
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions