Thanks for the feedback Ryan, splitted the PR into 2 :
SPEC PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
Client Side Impl : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15572

Best,
Prashant Singh



On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote:

> +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
>>
>

Reply via email to