Thank you for confirming over slack Ajantha, I also double checked with Russell offline, this seems to be a behaviour change which can't go in a patch release, maybe 1.10 then. So I think we should be good for now. That being said, I will start working on getting a RC out with just this commit <https://github.com/singhpk234/iceberg/commit/14ba08e672df5061f8ac0978ea81f10535da2246> on top of 1.9.1, and will start a thread for that accordingly !
Best, Prashant Singh On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 8:44 AM Prashant Singh <prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Ajantha, > > I was going to wait for 2-3 days before cutting an RC anyway :), to see > if anyone has an objection or some more *critical* changes to get in. > Thank you for the heads up ! > > Best, > Prashant Singh > > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 11:02 AM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I have a PR that needs to be included for 1.9.2 as well! >> >> I was about to start a release discussion for 1.9.2 tomorrow. >> >> It is from an oversight during partition stats refactoring (in 1.9.0). We >> missed that field ids are tracked in spec during refactoring! Because of >> it, schema field ids are not as per partition stats spec. Solution is to >> implicitly recompute stats when old stats are detected with invalid field >> id. Including the fix in 1.9.2 can reduce the issue impact as new stats >> will have valid schema ids and also handle corrupted stats. Feature is not >> widely integrated yet and engine integrations are in progress for 1.10.0. >> But we still want to reduce the impact of the issue. I have chatted with >> Peter and Russell about this. >> >> PR will be shared tomorrow. >> >> Just giving heads up to wait a day or two for a release cut. >> >> - Ajantha >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 11:25 PM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 for a 1.9.2 release >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 10:53 AM Prashant Singh < >>> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey Kevin, >>>> This goes well before 1.8, if you will see the issue that my PR refers >>>> to is reported from iceberg 1.7, It has been there since the beginning of >>>> the IRC client. >>>> We were having similar debates on if we should patch all the releases, >>>> but I think this requires more wider discussions, but 1.9.2 sounds like the >>>> immediate next steps ! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Prashant Singh >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 10:42 AM Kevin Liu <kevinjq...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Prashant, >>>>> >>>>> This sounds like a good reason to do a patch release. I'm +1 >>>>> >>>>> Do you know if this is also affecting other minor versions? Do we also >>>>> need to patch 1.8.x? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Kevin Liu >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 10:30 AM Prashant Singh < >>>>> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>> >>>>>> A couple of users have recently reported a *critical table >>>>>> corruption issue* when using the Iceberg REST catalog client. This >>>>>> issue has existed from the beginning and can result in *committed >>>>>> snapshot data being incorrectly deleted*, effectively rendering the >>>>>> table unusable (i.e., corrupted). The root cause is *self-conflict >>>>>> during internal HTTP client retries*. >>>>>> >>>>>> More context can be found here: >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12818#issue-3000325526 >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> https://apache-iceberg.slack.com/archives/C025PH0G1D4/p1747992294134219 >>>>>> >>>>>> We’ve seen this issue hit by users in the wider community and also >>>>>> internally on our end. I’ve submitted a fix here (now merged) : >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12818 >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the *severity* and the *broad version impact*, I’d like to >>>>>> propose cutting a *1.9.2 patch release* to include this fix. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm also happy to *volunteer as the release manager* for this >>>>>> release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking forward to hearing the community's thoughts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Prashant Singh >>>>>> >>>>>
