+0, as I agree with Amogh, I think it would fit nicely with Honah's work of formalizing the properties.
Kind regards, Fokko Op vr 17 jan 2025 om 08:55 schreef Honah J. <hon...@apache.org>: > +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) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
