+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 10:17 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 8:02 AM Russell Spitzer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 10:01 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 6:29 PM Prashant Singh <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello everyone ! >>>> The namespace separator for nested namespaces discussion is converged >>>> (thanks a ton Eduard) >>>> I additionally also added wording for the nested views per the feedback. >>>> The spec proposal [1] is ready for review again, I have also updated >>>> the reference implementation too from client side [2] per spec. >>>> >>>> Please do have a pass and vote based on how you all feel, when you get >>>> some time. Appreciate all the feedback so far ! >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13810 >>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13979 >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Prashant Singh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 10:04 AM Prashant Singh < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for the feedback, Ryan. I agree that we should leave the vote >>>>> open longer and get the wording right. I'll work on addressing the new >>>>> feedbacks. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Prashant Singh >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 8:59 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think this is a good addition, but I think it may need a bit of >>>>>> work to get the wording right and there's still ongoing discussion. Maybe >>>>>> we should leave this vote open longer until the discussion settles? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I want to point out that this is another use of a specific >>>>>> separator char. I think it would be good to revisit our separator >>>>>> discussion and finally close on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:33 AM John Zhuge <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 6:23 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 on the spec change. It’s a solid first step toward enabling >>>>>>>> DEFINER views. As usual, the spec change is intentionally kept separate >>>>>>>> from access control. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yufei >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 8:18 AM huaxin gao <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 6:38 PM Prashant Singh < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>>>> I propose adding an *optional* referenced-by to the REST >>>>>>>>>> loadTable call, which will contain the fully qualified name of the >>>>>>>>>> view >>>>>>>>>> (namespace of the view name and the view name) in case the table is >>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>> referenced by a view. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This will be really helpful in a couple of ways : >>>>>>>>>> 1. First step towards enabling DEFINER >>>>>>>>>> <https://trino.io/docs/current/sql/create-view.html#security> >>>>>>>>>> views >>>>>>>>>> 2. Audit, incase one wants to track what's the base objects >>>>>>>>>> accessed from the direct object accessed (example: doc >>>>>>>>>> <https://docs.snowflake.com/en/sql-reference/account-usage/access_history#columns>) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For details please check: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Spec change PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13810 >>>>>>>>>> - Reference Implementation PR: >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13979 >>>>>>>>>> - Discuss Thread: >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/01gb9rygdd1gqks7lnl1o6440qocnh9m >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec >>>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 >>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> Prashant Singh >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> John Zhuge >>>>>>> >>>>>>
