+1 Best, Honah
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 22:54 Manish Malhotra < manish.malhotra.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > +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) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
