Hi Amit, On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 5:14 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 4:24 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dear Shlok, > > > > Thanks for creating the patch. Personally I prefer approach2; approach1 > > cannot > > indicate the current status of synchronization, it just shows the history. > > I feel approach2 has more information than approach1. > > > > I also think so but Ashutosh thought that it would be hacky. Ashutosh, > did you have an opinion on this matter after seeing the patches? >
Yes, I’ve looked into both the patches. Approach 1 seems quite straightforward. In approach 2, we need to pass some additional arguments to update_local_sync_slot and update_and_persist_local_synced_slot, which makes it feel a little less clean compared to approach 1, where we simply add a new function and call it directly. That said, this is just my view on code cleanliness, I’m fine with proceeding with approach 2 if that’s considered the better option. -- With Regards, Ashutosh Sharma,
