+1 (non-binding) On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 at 11:22, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (non binding) > > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 7:50 PM 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 >> >
