Large blobs #263
Merged
Large blobs #263
Conversation
This file contains 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
ia0
reviewed
Jan 20, 2021
|
I'll rebase as announced now, then work on the transactions. |
kaczmarczyck
force-pushed
the
large-blobs
branch
from
f41e73d
to
cf8b54b
Compare
ia0
reviewed
Jan 22, 2021
ia0
reviewed
Jan 25, 2021
ia0
approved these changes
Jan 25, 2021
Closed
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 PR implements the
LargeBlobscommand. It is based on #256 right now, and will be rebased on top of develop after #256 is merged.All work is in this commit. It is pushed here as a preview and to discuss how to best access the storage. The goal is to end up with an implementation of this command that is functionally equivalent, but more efficient in how it
gets andcommits the data.