[Merged by Bors] - Don't requeue already-known RPC blocks#4214
Closed
paulhauner wants to merge 1 commit intosigp:unstablefrom
Closed
[Merged by Bors] - Don't requeue already-known RPC blocks#4214paulhauner wants to merge 1 commit intosigp:unstablefrom
paulhauner wants to merge 1 commit intosigp:unstablefrom
Conversation
michaelsproul
added
ready-for-merge
Member
Author
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 15, 2023
## Issue Addressed NA ## Proposed Changes Adds an additional check to a feature introduced in #4179 to prevent us from re-queuing already-known blocks that could be rejected immediately. ## Additional Info Ideally this would have been included in v4.1.0, however we came across it too late to release it safely. We decided that the safest path forward is to release *without* this check and then patch it in the next version. The lack of this check should only result in a very minor performance impact (the impact is totally negligible in my assessment).
|
Pull request successfully merged into unstable. Build succeeded! The publicly hosted instance of bors-ng is deprecated and will go away soon. If you want to self-host your own instance, instructions are here. If you want to switch to GitHub's built-in merge queue, visit their help page.
|
bors
bot
changed the title
ghost
pushed a commit
to oone-world/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2023
## Issue Addressed NA ## Proposed Changes Adds an additional check to a feature introduced in sigp#4179 to prevent us from re-queuing already-known blocks that could be rejected immediately. ## Additional Info Ideally this would have been included in v4.1.0, however we came across it too late to release it safely. We decided that the safest path forward is to release *without* this check and then patch it in the next version. The lack of this check should only result in a very minor performance impact (the impact is totally negligible in my assessment).
Woodpile37
pushed a commit
to Woodpile37/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2024
## Issue Addressed NA ## Proposed Changes Adds an additional check to a feature introduced in sigp#4179 to prevent us from re-queuing already-known blocks that could be rejected immediately. ## Additional Info Ideally this would have been included in v4.1.0, however we came across it too late to release it safely. We decided that the safest path forward is to release *without* this check and then patch it in the next version. The lack of this check should only result in a very minor performance impact (the impact is totally negligible in my assessment).
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue Addressed
NA
Proposed Changes
Adds an additional check to a feature introduced in #4179 to prevent us from re-queuing already-known blocks that could be rejected immediately.
Additional Info
Ideally this would have been included in v4.1.0, however we came across it too late to release it safely. We decided that the safest path forward is to release without this check and then patch it in the next version. The lack of this check should only result in a very minor performance impact (the impact is totally negligible in my assessment).