+1 On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 9:28 AM Péter Váry <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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 >>> >>
