Skip to content

Integrate Process Piece Deletions - #1443

Closed
ZenGround0 wants to merge 4 commits into
mainfrom
feat/integrate-pdp-removal-queue
Closed

Integrate Process Piece Deletions#1443
ZenGround0 wants to merge 4 commits into
mainfrom
feat/integrate-pdp-removal-queue

Conversation

@ZenGround0

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

This is pure AI and can't really even be called a draft. More like an experimental scaffold of spike. I pointed the AI at a document I socratically built up with a lot of effort (I checked it in here if its useful but don't want it to actually merge). I think it might be worth using as a jumping off point but heavy warning that this might be low quality.

@FilOzzy FilOzzy added the team/fs-wg Items being worked on or tracked by the "FS Working Group". See FilOzone/github-mgmt #10 label Aug 19, 2026
@FilOzzy FilOzzy added this to FOC Aug 19, 2026
@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this to 📌 Triage in FOC Aug 19, 2026
@ZenGround0 ZenGround0 changed the title Pure AI draft Integrate Process Piece Deletions Aug 21, 2026
prove_at_epoch = NULL,
prev_challenge_request_epoch = NULL,
init_ready = $3
init_ready = FALSE

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Still trying to figure out what to do with this exactly. As it stands there is ambiguity between a dataset moving from 0 to some leaves and a dataset maintaining nonzero leaves but its challenge getting zeroed out because of processDeletes.

Maybe we can schedule this task to only ever run after a nextProvingPeriod has been called?

@ZenGround0

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Ok this is somewhat cleaned up. The most egregious things are removed.

@BigLep

BigLep commented Aug 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This is relevant for #1422 right?

@ZenGround0

ZenGround0 commented Aug 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

A few TODOs to focus on for getting this to a good state:

  • Implement SupportsPieceDeletionProcessing correctly and reusing existing version checking code.
  • nextProvingPeriod should actually be correctly handling its own deletion processing before the network upgrade
  • Make sure nextProvingPeriod “hasDrainInFlight” deferrals actually lead to nextProvingPeriod getting scheduled again.
  • Update handler scheduling deletions so it adds a row to the deletion drain table, I think I removed that in error. In particular I don’t think we need to wait for message send with mwe or anything. The table is best effort
    • we will need to do something fairly clever with clearing the table. Specifically we should be checking for inflight schedule removal messages before removing
  • Clean up the deletion drain table including thinking more about the name and probably getting rid of the whole blocked_at concept

@ZenGround0

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

I'm realizing that the AIs over complexity can be addressed by tracking a need for draining the deletion queue inside the data set data model. I think we want a field "needs_deletion_drain" on dataset

  1. Scheduling for proving doesn't change
  2. Scheduling for nextProvingPeriod only changes by also including a check that "needs_deletion_drain"
  3. processDeletions is scheduled for every data set with "needs_deletion_drain" == true

@FilOzzy FilOzzy moved this from 📌 Triage to ⌨️ In Progress in FOC Aug 25, 2026
@ZenGround0

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Closing in favor of #1453

@ZenGround0 ZenGround0 closed this Aug 25, 2026
@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this from ⌨️ In Progress to 🎉 Done in FOC Aug 25, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

team/fs-wg Items being worked on or tracked by the "FS Working Group". See FilOzone/github-mgmt #10

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants