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
