+1 for the spec changes, but I don't think that we should mix implementation and spec changes in the same PR. Could you remove the implementation changes?
On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM Prashant Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey All, > > I propose adding *scan-planning-mode *to loadTable API, which is an > optional value in the loadTable config section, which when present clients > MUST use it to decide which mode of scan planning they wanna do, server > side (using IRC scan planning API) or client side (client reading the > manifest and then figuring out FileScan Tasks). > > For details please check : > - PR : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867 > > Some summary on background discussion : > We debated a lot offline on what does MUST means to the client, as if does > the client has a liberty to fail fast if they have configured something in > their client side config which is orthogonal to what server is suggesting > and it feels like we had 2 options from the client end, either fail fast or > let the server override the client side config, it seemed like server > overriding the client side config with the client logging this as a warning > is what i have implemented mostly from pov what's done *today* for other > configs. > I do think we should think a bit more about how server side overrides go > along with the client side configs (I understand this is more *client > side* implementation details than directly related directly to server) > and plan to start a thread discussing this more in depth. I wanted to share > a summary of this discussion (which is captured in pr as well [here > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867#discussion_r2799750448>]) > to keep the wider community aware. > > 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 >
