+1 (non-binding) On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 4:22 PM Denny Lee <denny.g....@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 5:14 PM Aihua Xu <aihu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> + (non-binding). >> >> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:22 AM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
