📅 Original date posted:2015-10-29
📝 Original message:On Thursday, October 29, 2015 6:57:39 AM telemaco via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Why not allow two options:
>
> 1/ a default RocksDB/SQLite/LevelDB (whatever is decided)
> 2/ alternative provide instructions for connection to any other rdbms
> using odbc or jdbc.
I predict this would be a disaster. UTXO storage is CONSENSUS-CRITICAL code.
Any divergence in implementation behaviour, including bugs AND bugfixes, may
cause consensus failure. For this to have a reasonable *hope* of working, we
need to choose one storage engine, and *will* need to maintain consensus-
compatibility of it ourselves (since nobody else cares).
Fixing LevelDB frankly seems like an easier task than switching to anything
SQL-based, which would require a *lot* more *difficult-to-get-consensus-
compatible* code that we are all (or at least mostly) very unfamiliar with.
Research is fine, but let's be realistic about deployment.
Luke
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 17:43:54
in reply to nevent1q…uxye
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 17:43:54Event JSON
{
"id": "d35bdf1a6fefe316291e23d633c0c842fac64bdcb01cec91ae9cfd4c1b3d7c20",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686159834,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"09f07bc0e1ba48805727ba44deb034dc283bfadbc39b90714e52ddd0cad07414",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"df648de764a376b4d1022d35266c092277cd22b46636658237b7441d2c7a6195",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6245209c1c20201ec605146a47d28ac95f2f487c530981ac57ff8e0aed2943bf"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-29\n📝 Original message:On Thursday, October 29, 2015 6:57:39 AM telemaco via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Why not allow two options:\n\u003e \n\u003e 1/ a default RocksDB/SQLite/LevelDB (whatever is decided)\n\u003e 2/ alternative provide instructions for connection to any other rdbms\n\u003e using odbc or jdbc.\n\nI predict this would be a disaster. UTXO storage is CONSENSUS-CRITICAL code.\nAny divergence in implementation behaviour, including bugs AND bugfixes, may \ncause consensus failure. For this to have a reasonable *hope* of working, we \nneed to choose one storage engine, and *will* need to maintain consensus-\ncompatibility of it ourselves (since nobody else cares).\n\nFixing LevelDB frankly seems like an easier task than switching to anything \nSQL-based, which would require a *lot* more *difficult-to-get-consensus-\ncompatible* code that we are all (or at least mostly) very unfamiliar with.\n\nResearch is fine, but let's be realistic about deployment.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "35914a63bcabbc67566f5c9b3d3c925800fcde2e2097b3db45f4ac66f10033839006075a5fb9f1ad588b1e2a7125c6ba9f6b6d8f70b264a72c1a4588a3dc2105"
}