+1 Steven Wu <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. márc. 10., K, 5:04):
> +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 >> >
