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

feat: fast iavl for v4 #3562

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

feat: fast iavl for v4 #3562

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

faddat
Copy link
Member

@faddat faddat commented Nov 29, 2022

Brief Changelog

  • use an sdk branch supporting fast iavl
  • use go 1.18
  • use tendermint v0.34.24
  • use iavl v0.19.4
  • update & cleanup .golangci.yml
  • run golangci-lint run ./... --fix
    • this caused gofmt -s to run

Testing and Verifying

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

go mod edit -replace github.com/tendermint/tm-db=github.com/baabeetaa/tm-db@pebble
go mod tidy
go install -ldflags '-w -s -X github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.DBBackend=pebbledb -X github.com/tendermint/tm-db.ForceSync=1' -tags pebbledb ./...
osmosisd init test
cp networks/osmosis-1/genesis.json ~/.osmosisd/config/genesis.json
time osmosisd start --db_backend pebbledb

@faddat faddat changed the title fast iavl feat: fast iavl for v4 Nov 29, 2022
@faddat faddat marked this pull request as ready for review November 29, 2022 17:14
@ValarDragon
Copy link
Member

Awesome, ty for takign this on! Can we merge the SDK branch into v4? osmosis-labs/cosmos-sdk#392

(That LGTM, aside from one small comment + CI saying some go/mod update needed)

Copy link
Member

@ValarDragon ValarDragon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Lets get the SDK side merged first, to help us maintain the long term branch complexity. (Only small comment there to getting it merged :) )

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Dec 15, 2022
@faddat
Copy link
Member Author

faddat commented Dec 21, 2022

Unfortunately, it wasn't in the end very small. I might try to reapproach the whole thing with @catShaark tonight, if he is at the office.

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the Stale label Dec 22, 2022
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 5, 2023

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Jan 5, 2023
@ValarDragon ValarDragon closed this Jan 8, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants