If Terms differs from Terms1, then it'll be because there was an issue in recovering the msg_store client refs from Terms. Now given that the terms are stored in the clean_file_name, there's a possibility that we crashed _during_ writing the clean_file_name (e.g. ran out of disk space). Thus we could then read in a corrupted terms file, set Terms1 to [], but still think we terminated cleanly (as we could delete the file). However, in that case, qi:recover/1 will detect the error when reading the terms file and will not try and present those terms as client_refs to the msg_store on startup. At which point, the msg_store will record dirty shutdown in its state, and then qi:recover/4, at which point the qi will do a dirty recovery. Thus in conclusion, the structure of the term file essentially forms its own checksum: if it's parsable then the data in it is trustable. Consequently, it doesn't actually matter if we pass in Terms or Terms1 here, but Terms1 is more intuitively correct

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions