It is possible that lower blocks are complete due to being stored in the same file as blocks not yet eligible for pruning.
Not really satisfied with this new description, so suggestions for better phasing welcome :)
(Split out of #24629)
It is possible that lower blocks are complete due to being stored in the same file as blocks not yet eligible for pruning.
Code review ACK 5375051abccc551cdf389edc74c223e4e7f93e7e 06822f86545a0e946fdc266c57955f98d163a8bc. New description seems clearer and more correct than current description. (Current description is generally correct but could be misleading in case of manual pruning).
Not really satisfied with this new description, so suggestions for better phasing welcome :)
I think your description is good, but my suggestion might be “Height of the first unpruned block after the last pruned block”
Code-review ACK 06822f86545a0e946fdc266c57955f98d163a8bc
// EDIT: @ryanofsky: Seems like you ACKed a commit that is not part of this PR?
// EDIT: @ryanofsky: Seems like you ACKed a commit that is not part of this PR?
:rotating_light: :rotating_light: :rotating_light: :rotating_light:
rotating_light
Sorry, fixed now. Sometimes I review different PRs in different terminals and paste a hash from the wrong terminal into the github comment. The actual text of my comment was about this PR