Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 37.50000% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 27.48%. Comparing base (243d289) to head (3fcc6ac).
Report is 15 commits behind head on master.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #3366      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     21.59%   27.48%   +5.89%     
- Complexity     2309     3511    +1202     
============================================
  Files           426      593     +167     
  Lines         39719    48310    +8591     
  Branches       5624     6234     +610     
============================================
+ Hits           8577    13280    +4703     
- Misses        30414    34096    +3682     
- Partials        728      934     +206     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Thanks for the contribution!
Here are my thoughts:

• The commits on the Iceberg table and the commits in the database are two separate processes. This issue is somewhat similar to a distributed transaction problem.
• If the commit on the Iceberg table is successful but the database commit fails, we should attempt to retry until the database write is successful.
• We should avoid making duplicate commits on the Iceberg table, as some repeated commits may lead to data duplication issues.

So the question arises:

• when re-entering the commit process, how do we determine whether the commit on Iceberg has already been completed?

I am afraid the current implementation will fail when the AMS restart.