On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 9:28 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:41 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If we want to avoid continuously syncing newly added slots in later > cycles and instead focus only on the ones that failed to sync during > the first attempt, one approach is to maintain a list of failed slots > from the initial cycle and only retry those in subsequent attempts. > But this will add complexity to the implementation. >
There will be some additional code for this but overall it improves the code in the lower level functions. We may want to use the existing remote_slot list for this purpose. The current proposed change in low-level functions appears to be difficult to maintain, especially the change proposed in update_and_persist_local_synced_slot(). If we can find a better way to achieve the same then we can consider the current approach as well. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
