+1, thanks Russel! this will help other engines as well.
Thanks, Manish On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 3:15 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm +0. I definitely agree with the premise that we need a spec change to > ensure added rows exist at the snapshot level for row lineage, but I feel > like there is an advantage to just formalizing the added-records snapshot > summary property, and make it required for writers in case row lineage is > enabled on the table. The advantage is that in the ecosystem more > implementations are likely to populate the summary already (beyond the Java > implementation, I see Python does as well) so for those implementations, > the lift to support row lineage is a little bit reduced since the field > will probably already be populated. It also avoids any awkwardness around > having 2 of essentially the same field in metadata. > > In the end, I think that is a minor advantage so I'm not very opinionated > on this. We're talking about one field, and the additional lift for that is > some slightly additional parsing handling in implementations which in the > grand scheme of things is a smaller portion of the work involved. I also > understand the argument that it's awkward to have required fields be in the > summary in the first place (thinking back to our discussions around > operation handling). > > Thanks, > > Amogh Jahagirdar > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 2:52 PM Prashant Singh <prashant010...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) ! >> >> Best, >> Prashant Singh >> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 1:14 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 10:39 AM Steve Zhang >>> <hongyue_zh...@apple.com.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Russell! +1 (non-binding) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Steve Zhang >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 15, 2025, at 10:53 PM, huaxin gao <huaxin.ga...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>> >>>> >>>>
