You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I'm always frustrated when there is only a single object in the DELETE RPC but a lot of objects are in the tombstone's body. It is even more unexpected after #297 (however, it is not that clear when we are cleaning unfinished big objects).
Describe the solution you'd like
Disallow "big" tombstones. One TS -- one object. Tombstones expire sooner or later and tombstones with many objects are not expected, it is even not possible currently due to DELETE RPC, only if someone creates it manually.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Keep it as is.
Additional context
Uncontrollable number of deleted objects by a single object makes it harder to maintain object meta information: nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#448 (comment).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It also allows to do placement by the original object OID in future making auxiliary objects follow original ones with higher probability (reducing negative effects from things getting out of sync).
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I'm always frustrated when there is only a single object in the DELETE RPC but a lot of objects are in the tombstone's body. It is even more unexpected after #297 (however, it is not that clear when we are cleaning unfinished big objects).
Describe the solution you'd like
Disallow "big" tombstones. One TS -- one object. Tombstones expire sooner or later and tombstones with many objects are not expected, it is even not possible currently due to DELETE RPC, only if someone creates it manually.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Keep it as is.
Additional context
Uncontrollable number of deleted objects by a single object makes it harder to maintain object meta information: nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#448 (comment).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: