+1 I'm mostly in favor of the single pipeline model but I don't see any issue with supporting both models.
> On May 6, 2024, at 1:43 PM, Rodrigo Meneses <rmene...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > Thanks so much for driving this Peter! > > On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 11:30 AM Péter Váry <peter.vary.apa...@gmail.com > <mailto:peter.vary.apa...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I would like to make a proposal [1] to support Flink Table Maintenance in >> Iceberg. The main goal is to have a solution where Flink can execute the >> Maintenance Tasks as part of the streaming job. Especially Rewrite Data >> Files, Rewrite Manifest Files and Expire Snapshots. >> The secondary goal is to provide building blocks for Flink batch jobs to >> execute the Maintenance Tasks independently, where the scheduling is done >> outside of Flink. >> >> This proposal is the outcome of extensive community discussions on the >> mailing list [2, 3]. >> >> Please respond with your recommendation: >> +1 if you support moving forward with the two separate objects model. >> 0 if you are neutral. >> -1 if you disagree with the two separate objects model. >> >> Thanks, >> Peter >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10264 >> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/yjcwbf1037jdq4prty6rtrrqmjzc71o0 >> [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/10mdf9zo6pn0dfq791nf4w1m7jh9k3sl
