Hi Maksim. Do I understand correctly that 'consistent cut start' message always contains IDs of transactions to include, while 'consistent cut finish' message always contains IDs of transactions to exclude from the consistent cut? (At least, this is the impression I got from the example of parsing the WAL and the accompanying figure). If this is the case, then it looks like the `include` and `check` fields are mutually exclusive in ConsistentCutRecord. Would it make sense to replace it with two classes, like ConsistentCutStartRecord(cutVer, include) and ConsistentCutFinishRecord(cutVer, exclude)?
Also, it seems that it could be beneficial to have a separate section explaining when the corresponding records are written to WAL, to make this information easier to find. Or, maybe, this could be added to the current 'WAL records' section. пн, 16 мая 2022 г. в 12:52, Maksim Timonin <timoninma...@apache.org>: > > Dear Igniters, > > I just published IEP-89 [1] that proposes a new feature to Ignite - (point > in time recovery) PITR. I propose to implement the Consistent Cut algorithm > for this, actually I achieved a working PoC for Ignite. And based on my > research I wrote this IEP. > > Let's start a discussion here. Any questions or comments are welcomed. > > Thanks! > > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=211884314
