This repository has been archived by the owner on Aug 19, 2022. It is now read-only.
Only remove records during GC #135
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Stebalien
suggested changes
Apr 2, 2020
|
|
||
| // if we've expired all the signed addresses for a peer, remove their signed routing state record | ||
| if len(amap) == 0 { | ||
| delete(s.signedPeerRecords, p) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should actually switch this to delete(s.addrs, p). Same below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wont they be removed by GC ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, but there's no reason not to clean this up early if we know it's empty.
Stebalien
approved these changes
Apr 4, 2020
Stebalien
force-pushed
the
feat/remove-non-gc-removal
branch
from
fa55f77
to
739d9b7
Compare
Stebalien
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2021
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
@Stebalien
Continuation of #133.