+1 On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 12:30 PM Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adding my own +1. > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 10:19 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> I think this update really helps ensure row ids will be present and >> reliable for upgraded tables. Thanks Ryan! >> >> On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 4:09 PM Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I’d like to start a vote to incorporate the spec changes in PR 12781 >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12781>. >>> >>> There are two main changes. First, the current language says that >>> upgrading a table to v3 leaves all row IDs null and they are assigned when >>> the rows are rewritten for the first time (either to move or modify the >>> row). The problem with this is that row IDs are missing until the entire >>> table is rewritten, which means that the feature is unreliable. Instead, I >>> propose that row IDs are assigned in the first write after upgrading to v3. >>> >>> In addition to making row IDs more useful, the change to how we upgrade >>> tables allows us to simplify the spec with statements like “any added or >>> existing data file without first_row_id should be assigned one via >>> inheritance” and “any manifest without a first_row_id must be assigned >>> one when writing a manifest list”. I think this sets clearer expectations. >>> >>> Second, I found some issues with the strict way that first_row_id is >>> inherited and assigned in the metadata tree. The current wording would >>> prevent writers from assigning row IDs to existing data files because >>> assignment was strict and only accounted for added files. Instead, I >>> propose changing the wording to “must be greater than or equal to” so that >>> there is some flexibility, and giving simple examples that are safe, like >>> first_row_id >>> = last_assigned.first_row_id + last_assigned.added_rows_count + >>> last_assigned.existing_rows_count. >>> >>> Please take a look at the PR and vote in the next 72 hours. >>> >>> [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec for v3 row lineage >>> [ ] +0 >>> [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ryan >>> >>
