I think there are some edits to be more clear that should not prevent this from passing and I also noted some minor issues that I would fix, like disallowing type promotion when fields are referenced by a check constraint. Overall +1.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 2:24 PM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non-binding). I have reviewed the spec and I think it is ready to go. > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 1:17 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 1:09 PM Russell Spitzer < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) - I have a few minor comments on the text itself but I >>> think all the substance is correct. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 12:37 PM Andrei Tserakhau via dev < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 8:22 PM huaxin gao <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to start a vote to add table constraints to the Iceberg v4 >>>>> table spec: >>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/17822 >>>>> >>>>> Summary of the change: >>>>> >>>>> - Adds three constraint types: `check`, `unique`, and `primary-key` >>>>> - Constraint definitions are stored in table metadata, with an >>>>> `enforced` flag that controls whether writers must verify the rows >>>>> they add >>>>> or modify >>>>> - Each snapshot records the status of each constraint in >>>>> `constraint-statuses`: `validated`, `valid`, `invalid`, or >>>>> `unvalidated` >>>>> - A `primary-key` constraint replaces identifier field IDs in v4. >>>>> When a table is upgraded to v4, its identifier fields are converted to >>>>> a >>>>> `primary-key` constraint that is not enforced >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks to everyone who reviewed the PR and joined the constraint syncs. >>>>> >>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 Add table constraints to the v4 spec >>>>> [ ] +0 >>>>> [ ] -1 I have concerns because ... >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Huaxin >>>>> >>>>
