+1 (non-binding) On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:44 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 > Yufei > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:37 AM Prashant Singh <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>>
