+1 (binding). I also left a few minor comments but the general spec change LGTM
On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 3:20 AM huaxin gao <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Ryan! I have addressed your comments in the PR, including allowing > type promotion for fields referenced by a check constraint. > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 4:36 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>
