+1 huaxin gao <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2025. dec. 5., P, 8:18):
> +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 >>>>>> >>>>>>
