Conversation
Signed-off-by: muraca <mmuraca247@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: muraca <mmuraca247@gmail.com>
|
My first thoughts were, "Is this really necessary, is parity db good enough, does Tuxedo need to be opinionated about the DB, etc". But the compile time is a pretty compelling reason. How many hours have I wasted and CO2 emitted compiling So in the end I actually do support this change, I just request that you document this a little bit better because this is a template and we don't want users getting confused and frustrated by things that are not so core to Tuxedo. So for example, please provide a better PR description. And maybe also a comment in the FYI, if the rock-db feature is enabled, the default DB is rocks DB. And it is a default feature. So in that sense, the default in the ecosystem is still to use Rocks DB. |
Edit: I will do it this way. It's a clean and elegant solution. |
Signed-off-by: muraca <mmuraca247@gmail.com>
JoshOrndorff
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also thought their way of determining the default was overkill. I wonder if it is for backwards compatibility for nodes that ahve been running since before parity db?
Anyway, I'm happy with the way you have it and look forward to the faster builds.
Use ParityDB as the default database, and allow RocksDB to be used by compiling the node with the feature flag
rocksdb.This was done because building RocksDB is only a waste of time and resources if used for CI and tests.