Are we specifically stating somewhere that all row-ids should be higher than or equal to the snapshot's `first-row-id`? In my mental model the `first-row-id` is only applicable for rows that don't have a specific row-id assigned.
Noneless, I agree that the `row-id` and the `last-updated-seq-num` should have changed to a new one, so we can say that undeleting a row is not allowed because of this. Can we create a validator to prevent this from happening? Steven Wu <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2025. nov. 21., P, 21:11): > The undeleted row would have invalid `row-id` and `last-updated-seq-num`. > Since it is a new row (added back), it should have the `row-id` higher than > or equal to the snapshot's `first-row-id` and the `last-updated-seq-number` > should inherit/have the new snapshot's sequence number. > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 11:48 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Should we clarify the V3 spec to explicitly formid "*undelete*" of a row >> by unsetting the DV bit? Unsetting a DV bit essentially adds a row with >> lower row-id than the snapshot's first-row-id, which would violate the row >> lineage spec. With the restriction, DV cardinality should be monotonically >> increasing. >> >> Thanks, >> Steven >> >
