Just to clarify, I think you meant https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15691 which is now merged.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 9:57 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > The vote passed with 11 +1s (6 binding and 5 non-binding) and no -1. > > I will merge the spec PR that fixes the inconsistent wording. > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15830 > > Thanks everyone for the review and vote. > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 7:24 AM huaxin gao <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 7:18 AM Russell Spitzer < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 9:16 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 10:02 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > +1 (non-binding) >>>> > >>>> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 8:37 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner >>>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > +1 >>>> > > >>>> > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 8:39 AM Péter Váry < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >> +1 >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 03:28 Neelesh Salian < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> +1 (non-binding). Thanks Steven. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 18:23 John Zhuge <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 12:28 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> +1 binding >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Thanks Steven for the change. Hopefully there is no downstream >>>> clients building logic based on the error message. >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Yufei >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 12:22 PM Kevin Liu < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> +1 binding >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Steven! >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 11:54 AM Daniel Weeks < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> I followed up with Steven offline and with the updates I'm >>>> changing my vote to a +1. >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks Steven! >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 12:49 PM Daniel Weeks < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> -1 (for now) >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> Steven, I'm not sure we've had enough discussion on this and >>>> what we're actually trying to solve for. The PR looks like we're just >>>> updating the description, but there's really no functional change here. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> There's actually a more significant discrepancy in that the >>>> create/rename/register view can only return a ViewAlreadyExistsError even >>>> if it's a table and create/rename/register Table can only return a >>>> TableAlreadyExistsError even if it's a view. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> I think clarifying the description doesn't really address >>>> this issue and functionally we've strictly defined two specific return >>>> types that are aligned with their specific load routes, but identifier >>>> uniqueness spans multiple. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> I also don't know what else may collide (functions, indexes, >>>> etc.). Some of this might be engine specific. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> I just don't feel like this is the right way to address it >>>> (though I could be convinced otherwise if there something specific we need >>>> to solve in the near term). >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> -Dan >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 11:09 AM Steven Wu < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi. >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> The REST spec currently defines six write operations that >>>> return a 409 Conflict when an identifier already exists. However, the >>>> descriptions of what constitutes a conflict are inconsistent: >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Enforcing cross-type uniqueness (table or view): >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> renameTable, renameView, registerView say: "already exists >>>> as a table or view" >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Only enforcing within the same type (table or view only): >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> createTable, registerTable, createView say: "table already >>>> exists" / "view already exists" >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose a vote on a small clarification in the >>>> REST spec to apply the same wording of "The identifier already exists as a >>>> table or view" across all 6 endpoints. >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15691/changes >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Steven >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> -- >>>> > >>>> John Zhuge >>>> >>>
