Have you tried Badger before this proposal? and did not find anything similar?
Yes
What you wanted to do.
To overcome the transaction size limitation, we are forced to use batch writes. But there is no way to rollback the created transactions in case of error. In addition, the transactions created automatically will be readable before the entire batch is written, which is not necessarily desirable.
What you actually did.
No response
Why wasn't it great, with examples.
No response
Additional information.
Badger could use a list of timestamps that will not be readable, in the same way that there are banned namespaces. These ignored (or pending) timestamps would not be readable until they were marked as ready.
Have you tried Badger before this proposal? and did not find anything similar?
Yes
What you wanted to do.
To overcome the transaction size limitation, we are forced to use batch writes. But there is no way to rollback the created transactions in case of error. In addition, the transactions created automatically will be readable before the entire batch is written, which is not necessarily desirable.
What you actually did.
No response
Why wasn't it great, with examples.
No response
Additional information.
Badger could use a list of timestamps that will not be readable, in the same way that there are banned namespaces. These ignored (or pending) timestamps would not be readable until they were marked as ready.