Ignore trie nodes while recording a proof#8172
Merged
Conversation
…ck-data-multiple-blocks
…ck-data-multiple-blocks
…ck-data-multiple-blocks
…ck-data-multiple-blocks
…ck-data-multiple-blocks
…-audience node_dev'
…om:paritytech/polkadot-sdk into bkchr-parachain-block-data-multiple-blocks
Member
Author
|
/cmd prdoc --audience node_dev |
skunert
approved these changes
Jul 14, 2025
|
All GitHub workflows were cancelled due to failure one of the required jobs. |
Member
Author
|
/cmd fmt |
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
alvicsam
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2025
This pull requests implements support for ignoring trie nodes while recording a proof. It directly includes the feature into `basic-authorship` to later make use of it in Cumulus for multi-block PoVs. The idea behind this is when you have multiple blocks per PoV that trie nodes accessed or produced by a block before (in the same `PoV`), are not required to be added to the storage proof again. So, all the blocks in one `PoV` basically share the same storage proof. This also impacts things like storage weight reclaim, because ignored trie node do not contribute a to the storage proof size (similar to when this would happen in the same block). # Example Let's say block `A` access key `X` and block `B` accesses key `X` again. As `A` already has read it, we know that it is part of the storage proof and thus, don't need to add it again to the storage proof when building `B`. The same applies for storage values produced by an earlier block (in the same PoV). These storage values are an output of the execution and thus, don't need to be added to the storage proof :) Depends on #6137. Base branch will be changed when this got merged. Part of: #6495 --------- Co-authored-by: cmd[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Michal Kucharczyk <[email protected]>
github-project-automation
bot
moved this from Todo
to Done
in [preview] release tracker
github-project-automation
bot
moved this from Todo
to Done
in [preview] release tracker
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
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.
This pull requests implements support for ignoring trie nodes while recording a proof. It directly includes the feature into
basic-authorshipto later make use of it in Cumulus for multi-block PoVs.The idea behind this is when you have multiple blocks per PoV that trie nodes accessed or produced by a block before (in the same
PoV), are not required to be added to the storage proof again. So, all the blocks in onePoVbasically share the same storage proof. This also impacts things like storage weight reclaim, because ignored trie node do not contribute a to the storage proof size (similar to when this would happen in the same block).Example
Let's say block
Aaccess keyXand blockBaccesses keyXagain. AsAalready has read it, we know that it is part of the storage proof and thus, don't need to add it again to the storage proof when buildingB. The same applies for storage values produced by an earlier block (in the same PoV). These storage values are an output of the execution and thus, don't need to be added to the storage proof :)Depends on #6137. Base branch will be changed when this got merged.
Part of: #6495