Skip to content

Add offset support to MemoryFreezer #1965

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
LarryArnault45 wants to merge 8 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
+195 −17

Merge develop into memory-freezer-offset

d917c1e
Select commit
Loading
Failed to load commit list.
Open

Add offset support to MemoryFreezer #1965

Merge develop into memory-freezer-offset
d917c1e
Select commit
Loading
Failed to load commit list.
Claude / Claude Code Review completed May 15, 2026 in 12m 44s

Code review found 1 important issue

Found 5 candidates, confirmed 1. See review comments for details.

Details

Severity Count
🔴 Important 1
🟡 Nit 0
🟣 Pre-existing 0
Severity File:Line Issue
🔴 Important core/rawdb/freezer_memory.go:266-276 AncientBytes left non-offset-aware while Ancient/AncientRange were updated

Annotations

Check failure on line 276 in core/rawdb/freezer_memory.go

See this annotation in the file changed.

@claude claude / Claude Code Review

AncientBytes left non-offset-aware while Ancient/AncientRange were updated 

MemoryFreezer.AncientBytes (core/rawdb/freezer_memory.go:467-490) was not updated to be offset-aware, while this PR adds offset translation to Ancient and AncientRange. With offset > 0, AncientBytes silently disagrees with Ancient/AncientRange: e.g. AncientBytes("test", 12, 0, n) on a freezer with offset=10 and items at absolute ids 10..12 hits the t.items<=start guard and returns errOutOfBounds, while AncientBytes("test", 2, 0, n) — below the absolute start — would silently return data for what
View more details on Claude