On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 11:32:19AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> With a local hash table, I don't think it's necessary to introduce new
> code for managing
> a DSA based list of tranche names as is done in v3. We can go back to
> storing the shared
> trance names in dshash.
>
> What do you think?
My first thought is that a per-backend hash table seems too
expensive/complicated for this. Couldn't it just be an array like we have
now?
--
nathan
