support rocksdb v7

[faddat]

Works towards: #695

Description

This PR migrates us away from gorocksdb wrapper library, which is no longer maintained, and to grocksdb, which is. Along the way we get support for rocksdb v7:

https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/releases/tag/v7.0.1

---

For contributor use:

• Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
• Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1285 (9538057) into main (b6d342a) will decrease coverage by 0.75%.
The diff coverage is 9.32%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1285      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   20.90%   20.14%   -0.76%     
==========================================
  Files         196      203       +7     
  Lines       25425    26824    +1399     
==========================================
+ Hits         5316     5405      +89     
- Misses      19118    20412    +1294     
- Partials      991     1007      +16     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
x/claim/abci.go	0.00% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/client/cli/query.go	34.45% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/client/cli/tx.go	0.00% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/handler.go	0.00% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/keeper/claim.go	64.33% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/keeper/grpc_query.go	2.50% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/keeper/hooks.go	28.00% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/keeper/keeper.go	87.50% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/keeper/params.go	81.81% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/module.go	58.06% <ø> (ø)
... and 106 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ee2fa7c...9538057. Read the comment docs.

[alexanderbez]

Shouldn't support for this version of RocksDB come from the (our) SDK dependency?

[faddat]

Oh, do you mean github.com/cosmos/gorocksdb ?

If you mean that, the answer is no. gorocksdb doesn't support the latest rocksdb, and isn't maintained.

If you mean this: tendermint/tm-db#229

the answer is no, it hasn't been merged

There's also badgerdb v3 support in this one:

tendermint/tm-db#232

Additional context here:

cosmos/gorocksdb#6 (comment)

[ValarDragon]

Have you checked if we can upgrade an existing rocksDB database to this new import, and if things still work? If you've tested that and it works, then imo its good to merge!

If that doesn't work, we should call this db something else in tm-db / makefile OR communicate to all validators on the old RocksDB to switch in the interrim. (I would prefer not doing the latter option, or at minimum only considering it after state sync is up)

[faddat]

@ValarDragon

• I think it is compatible with v6
• I think that we were the only ones to use rocksdb as a validator, and tbh, it did not go well (yet). The biggest issue was state sync, and that broke (for rocks specifically) when we added wasm to osmosis

This is kinda too many "I thinks" for me, I'd like to suggest that we merge this when this is merged:

tendermint/tm-db#236

That way, our tm-db continues to match the one upstream (our iavl currently relies on that repo as well)

I've converted this to a draft till then & will update when upstream does

[p0mvn]

Hi @faddat . I'm reviewing open PRs. Are we still blocked on the PR in tm-db?

[faddat]

Yes. We are still blocked on that, here’s a tracker:

tendermint/tm-db#248

[faddat]

@marbar3778 I would like to try to resolve this.

[faddat]

Regarding this one I intend to bring up the core issues at play on Friday's SDK architecture review call.

I'd very much like to get it in.

[ValarDragon]

Adding the blocked label for now!

[ValarDragon]

Closing since we're not actively working on this rn / its gone stale. (trying to get the PR list down a bit)

Lets re-open when we can allocate attention again?

Seems like this is actually super close to being in a state we can use? We basically needed to:

• Update our TM-DB version
• See what happens if I had a rocks DB v6 version, and we switched to this for v7. (Did things break?)
• See what happens running a rocksDB instance on mainnet / it still works

This can all be tested against v10.x as well, so we can test out there before it gets into another release