I think this is a good addition, but I think it may need a bit of work to
get the wording right and there's still ongoing discussion. Maybe we should
leave this vote open longer until the discussion settles?

Also, I want to point out that this is another use of a specific separator
char. I think it would be good to revisit our separator discussion and
finally close on it.

On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:33 AM John Zhuge <jzh...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 6:23 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 on the spec change. It’s a solid first step toward enabling DEFINER
>> views. As usual, the spec change is intentionally kept separate from access
>> control.
>>
>> Yufei
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 8:18 AM huaxin gao <huaxin.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 6:38 PM Prashant Singh <prashant010...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> I propose adding an *optional* referenced-by to the REST loadTable
>>>> call, which will contain the fully qualified name of the view (namespace of
>>>> the view name and the view name) in case the table is being referenced by a
>>>> view.
>>>>
>>>> This will be really helpful in a couple of ways :
>>>> 1. First step towards enabling DEFINER
>>>> <https://trino.io/docs/current/sql/create-view.html#security> views
>>>> 2. Audit, incase one wants to track what's the base objects accessed
>>>> from the direct object accessed (example: doc
>>>> <https://docs.snowflake.com/en/sql-reference/account-usage/access_history#columns>)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For details please check:
>>>>
>>>> - Spec change PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13810
>>>> - Reference Implementation PR:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13979
>>>> - Discuss Thread:
>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/01gb9rygdd1gqks7lnl1o6440qocnh9m
>>>>
>>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours:
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec
>>>> [ ] +0
>>>> [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Prashant Singh
>>>>
>>>
>
> --
> John Zhuge
>

Reply via email to