Hi Dmitri, Thank you for the comment, maybe we can continue the discussion on the PR (there are still some other open issues). I don't think the current spec references the REST catalog, but I think the same issue occurs for table specification.
Cheers, Micah On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 10:37 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <dmitri.bourlatch...@dremio.com.invalid> wrote: > Sorry for the late reply. The vote closed, so I'll just post my comments > without voting here. > > My reading of the spec change in PR #8982 [1] is that it is not normative. > More specifically, REST catalog implementations that do not expose the full > snapshot history in metadata JSON will not violate the spec. > > Therefore, I do not oppose this change, but I'd appreciate it if this > point were explicitly mentioned in the spec text. > > I propose adding a phrase like "when the REST catalog makes the snapshot > history available in the metadata JSON, time travel queries should be > executed like this.... [existing spec text]. If a catalog does not expose > the full snapshot history, time travel queries should provide clear > messages in case they cannot find the appropriate snapshot". > > Thanks, > Dmitri. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8982 > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:15 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> The vote passes with: >> >> 5 "+1 Binding votes" >> 3 "+1 Non-binding votes." >> 0 "-1 votes" >> >> >> Actions to be taken: >> 1. Update the language/location of the clarification on time travel in >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8982 and then have a >> committer/PMC member merge. I'll try to have this updated by Monday. >> 2. Merge https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8981 (it seems there is >> no further feedback on this). >> >> Thanks everyone for the feedback. >> >> >> -Micah >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 9:03 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> added minor comments to the time travel PR. >>> >>> Best, >>> Jack Ye >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 8:22 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (binding) >>>> >>>> Thanks, Micah. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 8:29 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 (non-binding) on these spec clarifications >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Amogh Jahagirdar >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:08 PM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I am +1 for the spec clarifications. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have left some comments for the time travel PR. we can discuss the >>>>>> details in the PR itself before merging. In particular, I am wondering if >>>>>> the time travel clarification can be add to the existing `snapshots` >>>>>> section of the spec (instead of adding a new `implementation notes` >>>>>> section) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 3:54 PM Ryan Blue <b...@databricks.com.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, Micah! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 7:04 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 (non binding) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks ! >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 10:35 PM Micah Kornfield < >>>>>>>> emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I'd like to raise on modifying the table specification with >>>>>>>> clarifications on time travel and equality deletes [1][2]. The PRs >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> links to prior mailing list discussions where there was apparent >>>>>>>> consensus >>>>>>>> that these were the expectations for functionality. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Possible votes: >>>>>>>> > [ ] +1 Merge the PRs >>>>>>>> > [ ] +0 >>>>>>>> > [ ] -1 Do not merge the PRs because ... >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The vote will remain open for at least 72 hours. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Thanks, >>>>>>>> > Micah >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8982 >>>>>>>> > [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8981 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Ryan Blue >>>>>>> Databricks >>>>>>> >>>>>>
