+1 (nb)

Gábor

On Thu, 29 Jan 2026, 00:02 Adnan Hemani via dev, <[email protected]>
wrote:

> +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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

Reply via email to