+1 (binding) for the spec On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 8:04 PM roryqi <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > huaxin gao <[email protected]> 于2026年3月10日周二 10:07写道： > > > > +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]) 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 >
