+1 On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 10:55 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Makes sense to add this, so +1 > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 6:42 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1. There’s no known reason to exclude it, adding the ETag to >> CommitTableResponse feels like a natural and consistent extension of the >> existing behavior. >> >> Yufei >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 8:33 AM Christian Thiel < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>
