comment on serialization

accounts-db/src/accounts_hash.rs

@@ -1272,6 +1272,15 @@ const _: () = assert!(std::mem::size_of::<AccountHash>() == std::mem::size_of::<
 /// with zero lamport are treated to have the "identity" hash. add/sub such
 /// element don't impact the accumulated hash.
 ///
+/// ## Are we going to serialize/deserialize Lattice hash into DB storage?
+/// This is an open question. Unlike 32 byte Hash, Lattice hash is 2K. Too
+/// expensive to store on disk? Therefore, in current implementation, we don't
+/// Serialize Lattice hash into disk. Lattice hash is just computed from the
+/// account.
+/// In future, when we decide to serialize Lattice hash, we can add
+/// [Serialize, Deserialize, BorshSerialize, BorshDeserialize, BorshSchema]
+/// to the struct.
+///
 /// Lattice hash
 pub const LT_HASH_BYTES: usize = 2048;
 pub const LT_HASH_ELEMENT: usize = 1024;

runtime/src/bank.rs

@@ -6399,7 +6399,7 @@ impl Bank {
             .get_bank_hash_stats(slot)
             .expect("No bank hash stats were found for this bank, that should not be possible");
         info!(
-            "bank frozen: {slot} hash: {hash} accounts_delta: {} signature_count: {} last_blockhash: {} capitalization: {}{}, stats: {bank_hash_stats:?}",
+            "bank frozen: {slot} hash: {hash} accounts_delta: {} signature_count: {} last_blockhash: {} capitalization: {}{}, lt_hash: {:?}, stats: {bank_hash_stats:?}",
             accounts_delta_hash.0,
             self.signature_count(),
             self.last_blockhash(),
@@ -6408,10 +6408,7 @@ impl Bank {
                 format!(", epoch_accounts_hash: {:?}", epoch_accounts_hash.as_ref())
             } else {
                 "".to_string()
-            }
-        );
-        info!(
-            "lt_hash: {}",
+            },
             self.accumulated_accounts_hash.read().unwrap()
         );
         hash