Hey Gábor, Thanks for the Feedback! I'll give it another day for others to chime in and otherwise start the vote. I am currently at a point where I need it in Rust and was surprised it wasn't there :)
Best, Christian On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 at 16:39, Gábor Kaszab <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Christian, > > There is no particular reason ETag is not included in the > CommitTableResponse in the spec. In fact the reference IRC already returns > ETag on that endpoint. I also had it in mind to extend the spec with this, > I just wanted to finish the implementation of using ETags on the client > side for the loadTable endpoint (side note, it's open for review > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14398>, any feedback is > appreciated!). In terms of implementation, it is not that trivial to > implement the usage of the ETag after a RESTTableOperations.commit() / > refresh(), but this is another story, just the reason I wasn't in a rush > extending the ETag support further in the REST spec. > > Long story short, I'm +1 on this! > Gabor > > Christian Thiel <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2025. > dec. 4., Cs, 16:00): > >> Dear all, >> I noticed that we currently don't return an etag after single table >> commits. >> As of now, etags are returned for CreateTableResponse and >> LoadTableResponse. I browsed the original doc [1], the PR [2], the mailing >> List and my brain but couldn't find a discussion around this. >> >> Is anyone aware of a reason why we didn't include CommitTableResponse? >> If not I would start a vote on [3] to include it. >> >> Best, >> Christian >> >> [1] >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rnVSP_iv2I47giwfAe-Z3DYhKkKwWCVvCkC9rEvtaLA >> [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11946 >> [3] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14760 >> >>
