+1 On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 12:30 AM Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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 >
