Changyu Bi

> > @jowlyzhang I think the call to `HandleWriteBatchTimestampSizeDifference()` above probably needs similar handling since it could iterate through a write batch. > > Thanks for the fix and thanks...

@toge Thanks for the fix, just need to fix the CI failure.

Since the feature if not forward-compatible, marked the option as experimental for now in case we want a more explicit opt-in, e.g., introduce MANIFEST versioning and require setting a new...

> Sorry I'm confused. Won't the sequence number be zero regardless of whether we get it from the internal key footer, or from interpreting the largest_seqno as a global sequence...

> No, wait, that's worse for downgrade compatibility, as it'd silently not interpret the `largest_seqno` as a global seqno. > > Something better for downgrade compatibility could be restricting this...

Hi @wwl2755. > Is this feature already fully implemented in the pull request or is it just a prototype? This is implemented. It's in "EXPERIMENTAL" state, but should be usable....

It is generally safe to switch between level and universal compaction styles. You may see some additional compactions after you switch the compaction style, as the new compaction style reshapes...

Fixed in #13156 and is available in 9.10 release.

> @virajthakur is this a prototype or a working progress? If the latter, you may want to consider adding stress test support for feature that has non-trivial interaction with others...

> whether this causes any unexpected behavior or corruption with wrong interpretation for Type=24 entry. It should only be used as metadata for file boundary keys and to truncate range...