On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 02:45:53PM +0000, Stephan, Alexander wrote: > Hi Willy and William, > > First, sorry for the delay. I hope you had nice holidays! > Thanks for the feedback and happy to hear you like the refactor in general! > Using the reload counter is a very neat idea. So, I played around with my > test setup, and > yes, from what I found out, it works very well. 😊 > > > We probably don't need that if using the reload field instead of the > > timestamps. > > In my opinion, there is also no need for the separate index. I did extensive > testing here, I don't could trigger any such issue where it would become > necessary. > The reload counter is actually strictly monotonic. So, the approach turns > out to be quite elegant. > > So, appended you can find the updated set of patches using the discussed > reload approach. > The code changes touch surprisingly little lines of code. > Again, please let me know what you think. > > Thanks, and best, > > Alexander >
Hello Alexander, Thank you, looks like the good approach indeed, I merged the patch in master! Regards, -- William Lallemand
