neo4j-admin backup/restore interoperability transaction ID renumbering

Neo4j's backup and restore subsystem operates through two complementary administrative commands: neo4j-admin backup captures a consistent snapshot of a running or stopped database, while neo4j-admin restore replays transaction logs to reconstruct a store at a prior point-in-time.

A persistent uncertainty concerns whether the restore operation preserves the original transaction identifiers and commit timestamps when incremental backups are involved, as transaction IDs may be renumbered during the replay process.

This ambiguity has practical implications for audit trail integrity and point-in-time recovery validation, where downstream systems rely on commit chronology to reconcile data differences between the source and restored databases. Given that version compatibility between backup and restore targets is mandated and that check-consistency addresses structural rather than transactional fidelity, the mechanism by which transaction identifiers are handled across the restore boundary remains ambiguous. Does the restore process retain transaction IDs from the incremental backup stream, or does it reassign sequential identifiers during log replay? How does this affect the accuracy of post-restore Cypher-based data comparisons? Can administrators rely on check-consistency output to infer transaction-level continuity, or is additional validation required?