Thanks Steven. I feel it is needed so the MV spec is not scattered across the table and view spec pages. We may add a reference in each respective properties section.
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 10:04 AM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Walaa, thanks for initiating the next step. > > With the agreed model of separate view and storage table, I am wondering > if a separate materialized view spec page is needed. E.g., the new view > metadata (view-materialized and view-storage-table) is probably good to be > added to the view page directly to avoid information scattering. The same > can be said about the storage table metadata. > > We may keep the separate materialized view page to document motivation, > freshness semantics, etc.. > > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 10:58 PM Walaa Eldin Moustafa < > wa.moust...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Everyone, >> >> Thanks again for participating in the modeling discussion [1]. Since the >> outcome of this discussion was to model materialized views as separate >> objects, an Iceberg view and a table, I think the next step should be >> discussing the metadata details for each object. I have created a PR >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10280 with an initial spec >> improvement. Please feel free to review it and leave feedback there. >> >> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rotmqzmwk5jrcsyxhzjhrvcjs5v3yjcc >> >> Thanks, >> Walaa. >> >>
