Bugfix: RPC/blockchain: Correct description of getblockchaininfo's pruneheight result #24640
Conversation
…uneheight result It is possible that lower blocks are complete due to being stored in the same file as blocks not yet eligible for pruning.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code review ACK 5375051 06822f8. New description seems clearer and more correct than current description. (Current description is generally correct but could be misleading in case of manual pruning).
Not really satisfied with this new description, so suggestions for better phasing welcome :)
I think your description is good, but my suggestion might be "Height of the first unpruned block after the last pruned block"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code-review ACK 06822f8
// EDIT:
@ryanofsky: Seems like you ACKed a commit that is not part of this PR?
🚨 🚨 🚨 🚨 |
Sorry, fixed now. Sometimes I review different PRs in different terminals and paste a hash from the wrong terminal into the github comment. The actual text of my comment was about this PR |
…etblockchaininfo's pruneheight result 06822f8 Bugfix: RPC/blockchain: Correct description of getblockchaininfo's pruneheight result (Luke Dashjr) Pull request description: It is possible that lower blocks are complete due to being stored in the same file as blocks not yet eligible for pruning. Not really satisfied with this new description, so suggestions for better phasing welcome :) (Split out of bitcoin#24629) ACKs for top commit: theStack: Code-review ACK 06822f8 Tree-SHA512: 755a5a40d065ad77f4ac2c19c0b3502eceb3162034823ee7ce1668100d97e8a2bfb822ac381feb7afd13e653cd08a81d5fa505575531757457d6d22c909a6510
5 participants
It is possible that lower blocks are complete due to being stored in the same file as blocks not yet eligible for pruning.
Not really satisfied with this new description, so suggestions for better phasing welcome :)
(Split out of #24629)