Skip to content

Conversation

luke-jr
Copy link
Member

@luke-jr luke-jr commented Dec 25, 2016

Should fix #9103

@paveljanik
Copy link
Contributor

Needs rebase.

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member Author

luke-jr commented Jan 12, 2017

Fixed serialisation params. There are conflicts now - may I rebase?

@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the mempool_dat_extensible branch from 904552b to e98e4d2 Compare January 12, 2017 20:12
@luke-jr
Copy link
Member Author

luke-jr commented Jan 12, 2017

Rebased.

@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the mempool_dat_extensible branch 2 times, most recently from 93e033d to b14300f Compare February 6, 2017 19:30
Copy link
Contributor

@kallewoof kallewoof left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

utACK b14300f

@@ -4192,42 +4192,63 @@ bool LoadMempool(void)
if (version != MEMPOOL_DUMP_VERSION) {
Copy link
Contributor

@kallewoof kallewoof Feb 10, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The implications seem to be minor, but this means all bitcoin nodes prior to this PR being merged will drop all their mempools on startup. Is that okay? Would it be possible / worth it to load version=1 mempools too? Above comment by @sipa seems to indicate this was never used, in which case I think we should simply say MEMPOOL_DUMP_VERSION = 1 above.

@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the mempool_dat_extensible branch from b14300f to 5d25b27 Compare August 23, 2017 18:43
@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the mempool_dat_extensible branch from 5d25b27 to 8d309b8 Compare September 3, 2017 06:23
Copy link
Contributor

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not actually sure we want to save mempoolminfee - if you just restarted the practical mempoolminfee on the network may be much lower....it puts you in a state of downloading lots of transactions only pretty briefly (assuming any of your peers aren't limiting their mempool, which they almost always are, so mempoolminfee on most nodes never actually leaves 0 anyway). Probably not worth a incompatible version just for this, IMO, though if we had other things we wanted to store we could revisit.

@sipa
Copy link
Member

sipa commented Mar 6, 2018

I'm not sure this is worth it right now; we can revisit if there is critical information to add to the mempool file?

@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the mempool_dat_extensible branch from 8d309b8 to 1d34442 Compare March 6, 2018 19:20
@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented May 14, 2018

Thee seems to be no agreement to do this right now.
I'm also going to close #9103, we shouldn't have that issue open if we don't agree that this should be done.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

mempool saving doesn't save mempoolminfee
8 participants