+1 (binding) On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:09 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:54 AM Szehon Ho <szehon.apa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 (binding) Seems cleaner to me. >> >> Thanks >> Szehon >> >> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 10:31 AM Russell Spitzer < >> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +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 >>>>>> >>>>>
