+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 1:20 PM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > Thanks > Szehon > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 11:20 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 (binding) >> Yufei >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 11:16 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 10:50 AM Prashant Singh <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Everyone, >>>> >>>> As we discussed before in the idempotency spec, having an idempotency key >>>> in a mutating endpoint is really beneficial incase of clients HTTP retries >>>> per [1] (Thank you Huaxin for driving it) >>>> >>>> I want to propose adding idempotency keys to plan endpoint too, since some >>>> of them are mutating endpoints having idempotency key for them would be >>>> helpful for the server to make the call incase the client retries the same >>>> request, as the course of that i have created a spec PR [2] for the same. >>>> >>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours. >>>> >>>> [ ] +1 approve >>>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Prashant >>>> >>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/ppjdo97l4qpcxn0h0j6zhykgs7d0fpf7 >>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14730
