Yun's proposal (quoted below) looks acceptable to me. I see that Eric commented about multiple locations in his reply. Accounting for multiple locations upfront would make sense to me too (I believe I mentioned that earlier), but I'm also fine with a singular location for a start, if it helps with getting a POC implementation off the ground.
Re: ForbiddenException - I'm not sure this exact name is correct for location overlap errors. Forbidden in HTTP/REST usually means auth or access errors. I'd suggest Conflict. Cheers, Dmitri. On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 7:32 PM yun zou <yunzou.colost...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Want to summarize the thread here: > > For generic tables, we will add a `location` key to help cross engine > sharing and future support for credential vending. > > Here is a description about this `location` key and corresponding > restrictions and responsibilities: > - `location`(OPTIONAL): table root location in URI format. For example: > s3://<my-bucket>/path/to/table. > - The table root location is a location that includes all files for the > table. > - Clients (engines) are responsible to make sure all files are written > under the configured location. > - A table with multiple root locations (i.e. containing files that are > outside the configured root location) is not compliant with the current > generic table support in Polaris. > - No two tables can have the same or overlapped location, otherwise, a > ForbiddenException will be thrown on creation. > - If no location is provided, clients or users are responsible to manage > the location and location related concerns such as path conflict check etc. > - The location configuration can not be updated once the table is > created. > > This description will be added into the spec. In order to help non-API > users to discover the information easily, we will also get a site page to > describe the support > for Generic Table and key fields. > > Best Regards, > Yun > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 11:16 PM yun zou <yunzou.colost...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Dmitri, > > > > " I do not think those doc comments provide enough visibility to ensure > > that the key information > > is received by users, unless they are dealing directly with the API" > > -- Yeah, I agree those information may not be visible enough for users > who > > don't directly work with APIs. > > However, I think just having one page for "location" might be a little > bit > > overkill. Given that generic table API support is > > a new catalog capabilities that Polaris added which is not IRC, I think > it > > might worth having a more general page to > > describe the Polaris Generic Table support and describe some of the > > critical fields like *location*. > > I think we should have the description in the spec also, so that things > > could be clear for API users. > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > > > Best Regards, > > Yun > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 4:22 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> I believe the Open API spec and the definition of "location" are > slightly > >> different concerns. > >> > >> The former is about the API used to obtain information about Generic > >> Tables. > >> > >> The latter is about the interpretation of that information. One can > think > >> of the location > >> value being handled / transferred beyond the immediate Polaris client, > in > >> which case > >> is loses its connection to the API, but does not lose its meaning as a > >> location of a > >> Generic Table. > >> > >> Also, I think that Open API doc comments are too low-level and too > obscure > >> for > >> people who will work with processing actual Generic Table files. I do > not > >> think > >> those doc comment provide enough visibility to ensure that the key > >> information > >> is received by users, unless they are dealing directly with the API. > >> > >> That said, if you prefer to keep the finer points about Generic Table > >> locations in the > >> Open API spec, I'd be fine with that. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Dmitri. > >> > >> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 6:46 PM yun zou <yunzou.colost...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Dmitri, > >> > > >> > Thanks for the detailed explanation, I definitely agree we need to > call > >> out > >> > those restrictions and compliance in our Spec. > >> > > >> > As for the documentation, Polaris today already publishes the API > spec, > >> if > >> > you go to page https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/, > >> > and click on the Catalog API Spec, it will lead you to the published > >> Spec, > >> > which contains all description in the Spec. > >> > That basically means we have both published doc and spec code, and the > >> > single source of truth is the description in the doc. > >> > or do you think we should have an extra page for the Generic Table API > >> > spec? > >> > > >> > Best Regards, > >> > Yun > >> > > >> > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 3:20 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > * Clients (engines) are responsible for writing files only under > the > >> > > > specified location. > >> > > > >> > > It's nice to have a doc like that. But the open API spec is *the* > >> place > >> > to > >> > > define the behavior of client and server, and how they interact with > >> each > >> > > other. Just as we said before, spec change is recommended to have a > ML > >> > > discussion. > >> > > > >> > > * A table, whose files exist outside the declared location, is not > >> > > > compliant with the Polaris' definition for a Generic Table. > >> > > > >> > > I'm not sure we should go that far. "location" is an optional field. > >> It's > >> > > just some features like credential vending that don't work if > >> "location" > >> > is > >> > > missing. > >> > > > >> > > Yufei > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 2:59 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > di...@apache.org > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > As I commented in my other recent email, I think by introducing a > >> > > > "location" property Polaris enters the realm of table format > specs. > >> > > > > >> > > > This is fine, from my POV, however, since Polaris is the defining > >> > project > >> > > > behind that property, I believe Polaris should provide a more > >> > definitive > >> > > > description of the meaning and intended processing of that > property. > >> > > > > >> > > > To repeat myself, I think the Open API spec defines only the API > for > >> > > > obtaining the location. We need a place to define what this > location > >> > > means. > >> > > > I do not insist on calling this a "spec" for Generic Tables, but I > >> > think > >> > > it > >> > > > deserves a separate page in Polaris docs, where it would be > defined > >> > with > >> > > > more rigor. > >> > > > > >> > > > Specifically, I think we need to call out that: > >> > > > * The location is a base URI (essentially prefix) for all files > in a > >> > > > generic table. > >> > > > * Clients (engines) are responsible for writing files only under > the > >> > > > specified location. > >> > > > * A table, whose files exist outside the declared location, is not > >> > > > compliant with the Polaris' definition for a Generic Table. > >> > > > > >> > > > By extension, I think we ought to describe other existing > properties > >> > too. > >> > > > > >> > > > WDYT? > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > Dmitri. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 5:39 PM yun zou < > yunzou.colost...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Dmitri, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I think for Iceberg, we all agreed that there can be multiple > >> > > locations, > >> > > > > and I definitely agree with Russel that the extension > >> > > > > should be done with the IRC endpoints. The Generic Table APIs > are > >> > > > designed > >> > > > > for non-Iceberg table usage today, and > >> > > > > We still want Iceberg table usage to go through the IRC endpoint > >> to > >> > > have > >> > > > > full IRC support. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > As for the following point > >> > > > > "a more strict spec for that (define where file should and > should > >> not > >> > > > go)" > >> > > > > Are you referring that Polaris need to generate a location for > the > >> > > table > >> > > > to > >> > > > > use, if that is the case, I don't think engines > >> > > > > respects that today. The table locations are either generated by > >> the > >> > > > engine > >> > > > > or specified by the user. > >> > > > > Or are you referring that we should have something like Iceberg > >> that > >> > we > >> > > > > should have an allowed location and do a > >> > > > > validation to make sure the location is under the allowed > >> location? > >> > > Would > >> > > > > you mind elaborate more on this point? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Best Regards, > >> > > > > Yun > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 1:45 PM Russell Spitzer < > >> > > > russell.spit...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Yeah I think Iceberg and Hive are the only ones trying to make > >> life > >> > > > > > difficult, that I think > >> > > > > > we should also cover but in changes to the Iceberg Spec. Hive > >> can > >> > > just > >> > > > > stay > >> > > > > > how it is ... > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 2:59 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > >> > > di...@apache.org> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > For context: my locations concerns are rooted in Nessie's > >> > > experience > >> > > > > > where > >> > > > > > > we often get problem reports related to files being outside > >> the > >> > > > > declared > >> > > > > > > Iceberg metadata location. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Example: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/projectnessie/nessie/issues/10817#issuecomment-2887329227 > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I'm ok going with a single location for generic tables, but > I > >> > think > >> > > > > > Polaris > >> > > > > > > needs to have a more strict spec for that (define where file > >> > should > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > > should not go) because polaris owns this spec. Polaris ought > >> to > >> > > > define > >> > > > > > what > >> > > > > > > complies with the spec and what does not. Having a proper > >> spec is > >> > > > > > essential > >> > > > > > > to ensure a mutual understanding of all parties dealing with > >> > > Generic > >> > > > > > > Tables. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Open API yaml comments are not sufficient, IMHO. I'd prefer > to > >> > > have a > >> > > > > > > dedicated doc page to define expectations and compliance. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > Dmitri. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 2:17 PM Russell Spitzer < > >> > > > > > russell.spit...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The only multiple locations table formats I'm currently > >> aware > >> > of > >> > > > are > >> > > > > > Hive > >> > > > > > > > (partitions can live wherever) and Iceberg. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I think for Delta, Hudi, LanceDB, Paimon and File based > >> tables > >> > > > they > >> > > > > > all > >> > > > > > > > have to live in the root location. I'm not sure of any > other > >> > > "file" > >> > > > > > based > >> > > > > > > > tables where this would be an issue but I'd love to know > if > >> > > someone > >> > > > > > else > >> > > > > > > > has ideas. I think with the rise in credential vending, > >> > splitting > >> > > > > > things > >> > > > > > > > amongst multiple prefixes is becoming less common. I don't > >> > oppose > >> > > > > doing > >> > > > > > > an > >> > > > > > > > array of locations but it may be enough to just leave this > >> as > >> > an > >> > > > > > > extension > >> > > > > > > > later. (Support location or locations) > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 8:52 PM yun zou < > >> > > yunzou.colost...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitri, > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If it's not "all" is it not strong enough for a spec, > >> IMHO. > >> > If > >> > > > some > >> > > > > > > > tables > >> > > > > > > > > have multiple base locations how is Polaris going to > deal > >> > with > >> > > > > them? > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Sorry, when I say most of them, it was because I haven't > >> > tested > >> > > > all > >> > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > > them > >> > > > > > > > > (I only tested Delta and CSV before). > >> > > > > > > > > However, if Unity Catalog is only taking one location, I > >> > think > >> > > > that > >> > > > > > is > >> > > > > > > a > >> > > > > > > > > strong enough proof that > >> > > > > > > > > one location is enough today. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It is also more natural to start with one location, and > if > >> > > there > >> > > > > are > >> > > > > > > use > >> > > > > > > > > cases that > >> > > > > > > > > require support for multiple locations later, we can > move > >> on > >> > to > >> > > > V2 > >> > > > > > spec > >> > > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > > support multiple > >> > > > > > > > > tables locations. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > We're making a specification for Polaris. I do not think > >> it > >> > is > >> > > > > > > sufficient > >> > > > > > > > > to say we'll do the same as other (unspecified ATM) > >> catalogs. > >> > > > > > > > > If we want to migrate users from other Catalog services > to > >> > > > Polaris > >> > > > > > > > (through > >> > > > > > > > > federation), then Polaris will need to > >> > > > > > > > > provide corresponding capabilities. For example, Unity > >> > Catalog > >> > > > > > storage > >> > > > > > > > > location is a URI representation, when entity > >> > > > > > > > > are federated from Unity Catalog, we will need to be > able > >> to > >> > > > handle > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > URI > >> > > > > > > > > location. > >> > > > > > > > > If URI representation is a common standard that has been > >> > > accepted > >> > > > > by > >> > > > > > > > other > >> > > > > > > > > Catalog services like Unity Catalog, Gravitino, > >> > > > > > > > > Polaris should be compatible with that, otherwise it > might > >> > > cause > >> > > > > > > problem > >> > > > > > > > > for users when they are migrating from one to > >> > > > > > > > > another. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > What will Polaris Server do with this location? > >> > > > > > > > > For generic tables, Polaris will provide credential > >> vending > >> > for > >> > > > > this > >> > > > > > > > > location in near future, I don't see we will provide > >> > > > > > > > > anything else in short or mid term, since we still want > to > >> > > > promote > >> > > > > > > > > native support for Iceberg. > >> > > > > > > > > Or if you have anything special in your mind that you > >> think > >> > we > >> > > > > should > >> > > > > > > > > support? > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If Polaris has to define it in a spec, it will be hard > to > >> > > change > >> > > > in > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > > future. > >> > > > > > > > > Regardless of whether it is explicitly in the spec > >> definition > >> > > or > >> > > > > as a > >> > > > > > > > > reserved property key, as long as they are explicitly > >> > > > > > > > > documented, they will be hard to change in the future. > >> From > >> > > that > >> > > > > > > > > perspective, those two approaches seem the same to me. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Table location is critical information that is required > by > >> > the > >> > > > > engine > >> > > > > > > > side > >> > > > > > > > > to read and write the tables, which should > >> > > > > > > > > be explicitly defined to provide better sharing across > >> > engines. > >> > > > For > >> > > > > > > > > example, the delta table location is passed in the > >> > > > > > > > > table properties with a property key either "location" > or > >> > > "path" > >> > > > > > > depends > >> > > > > > > > on > >> > > > > > > > > how the table is created. Now, if another > >> > > > > > > > > engine wants to read the delta table, it will need to > >> > > understand > >> > > > > > those > >> > > > > > > > > keys, which are controlled by Spark today. If Spark > >> > > > > > > > > changes them one day, all sharing will stop working. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > As to whether we want to put it as an explicit field or > a > >> > > > reserved > >> > > > > > > key, I > >> > > > > > > > > think for a common field among various > >> > > > > > > > > table formats, it makes more sense to have it as an > >> explicit > >> > > > field. > >> > > > > > For > >> > > > > > > > > properties that are specific to a particular table > format, > >> > > > > > > > > it is more proper to just have a reserved key. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If Polaris takes control of the location, I think we > have > >> to > >> > be > >> > > > > more > >> > > > > > > > > careful > >> > > > > > > > > and at least try to make it future-proof. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I don't think Polaris is taking control of the location, > >> the > >> > > > > location > >> > > > > > > is > >> > > > > > > > > still controlled by the engine and users today like > table > >> > > names. > >> > > > > > > > > Polaris is a Catalog service, it records the generic > table > >> > > > entity, > >> > > > > > and > >> > > > > > > > > returns the information back to the user on query. > >> > > > > > > > > It might be able to do some validation on the location > >> (like > >> > > > check > >> > > > > > > > special > >> > > > > > > > > character), but it doesn't decide which location > >> > > > > > > > > the table will be used. I personally don't think it is a > >> bad > >> > > idea > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > > let > >> > > > > > > > > the Catalog service also take control of generating > >> > > > > > > > > the table location, but I think that will require a lot > of > >> > > work. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > >> > > > > > > > > Yun > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 5:22 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > >> > > > > di...@apache.org > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > No worries about the name. It is a possible > alternative > >> > > > spelling > >> > > > > :) > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 8:04 PM yun zou < > >> > > > > yunzou.colost...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitri, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I accidentally typed your name wrong in the > >> > previous > >> > > > > > reply! > >> > > > > > > > > > > Apologize for this! > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > For the S3 issue, I think we will need to deal with > >> those > >> > > > > > > regardless, > >> > > > > > > > > > > especially with the federation work going on, we > will > >> > need > >> > > to > >> > > > > > > handle > >> > > > > > > > > all > >> > > > > > > > > > > those entities eventually coming from different > >> Catalogs, > >> > > and > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > URI > >> > > > > > > > > > > format seems the standard format used by various > >> Catalog > >> > > > > > services. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > >> > > > > > > > > > > Yun > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:55 PM yun zou < > >> > > > > > yunzou.colost...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dimitri and Eric, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the feedback! > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > For the questions: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - Is one value or many? > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It will be one value, similar to the location in > >> > Iceberg > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage_location in unity catalog. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding to the point about having new data in > new > >> > > > locations > >> > > > > > and > >> > > > > > > > > > keeping > >> > > > > > > > > > > > old data in old locations, do we support that for > >> > Iceberg > >> > > > > > > > > > > > today? > >> > > > > > > > > > > > For most of the Spark tables, it seems to only > have > >> one > >> > > > > > location. > >> > > > > > > > > > Also, I > >> > > > > > > > > > > > think it is better to start restricted first, and > >> then > >> > > > extend > >> > > > > > it > >> > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > > > > > allow multiple locations when the use case raises. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Ref: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Iceberg location: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/main/open-api/rest-catalog-open-api.yaml#L3451 > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Storage location in Unity Catalog: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/main/open-api/rest-catalog-open-api.yaml#L3451 > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - Is it a URI? > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it will be a URI, which seems the standard > >> catalog > >> > > > > > > > > implementation. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding to the point about s3 v2 s3a, i assume > >> that > >> > is > >> > > a > >> > > > > > common > >> > > > > > > > > > > > problem that every catalog implementation needs to > >> > > address, > >> > > > > and > >> > > > > > > we > >> > > > > > > > > will > >> > > > > > > > > > > > stay the same on this part. At least from the load > >> > table > >> > > > > point > >> > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > > > view, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Spark engine knows how to deal with such cases. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - Does it point to any particular file? > >> > > > > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't point to a particular file. It is > the > >> > base > >> > > > > table > >> > > > > > > > > > location. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - Is it a common prefix of all files within a > table? > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is supposed to be the base table location, > which > >> > > > > > theoretically > >> > > > > > > > > > should > >> > > > > > > > > > > > be the common prefix of all files within a table I > >> > > believe. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - What happens when a value does not match these > >> > > > > expectations? > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Whether it is one value or many is restricted by > the > >> > spec > >> > > > > > > already. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > For URI format, I think we can do a format check, > >> and > >> > > fail > >> > > > > it. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Other than that, we will not do any other special > >> > check, > >> > > > and > >> > > > > we > >> > > > > > > > rely > >> > > > > > > > > on > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the client to put the correct value, otherwise, > the > >> > other > >> > > > > > engine > >> > > > > > > > will > >> > > > > > > > > > > > not be able to successfully read the table. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > For the location keyword, as Eric has pointed out, > >> we > >> > can > >> > > > > > > > potentially > >> > > > > > > > > > > have > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a reserved key for the properties. However, > location > >> > is a > >> > > > > > common > >> > > > > > > > > > > > enough key among various table formats, which > >> worths a > >> > > > > > dedicated > >> > > > > > > > key > >> > > > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > > > > > help store and load the information in a more > >> > > > straightforward > >> > > > > > > > > > > > way. For things that are specific to one or two > >> > > formats, I > >> > > > > > think > >> > > > > > > > it > >> > > > > > > > > > > makes > >> > > > > > > > > > > > more sense to use a reserved property key. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > As a reference, in Iceberg, the CreateTable > request > >> and > >> > > > > > > > TableMetadata > >> > > > > > > > > > > does > >> > > > > > > > > > > > have an explicit location key in the spec. For > >> > > > > write.data.path > >> > > > > > > > > > > > and write.metadata.path, they are passed as > >> properties > >> > > > today. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Yun > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 3:54 PM Dmitri > Bourlatchkov < > >> > > > > > > > di...@apache.org > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Another point: I'm pretty sure sooner or later > >> users > >> > > will > >> > > > > want > >> > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > > move > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> their data to some other location. As an option > >> users > >> > > may > >> > > > > want > >> > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > > > write > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> new > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> files into another location but keep old files in > >> > place. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Also: if the location is a URI, how do we deal > >> with s3 > >> > > vs. > >> > > > > s3a > >> > > > > > > for > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> example? > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> In Iceberg it is quite common for different > >> engines to > >> > > use > >> > > > > > > > different > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> access > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> tools, which often leads to different URI > schemes. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Cheers, > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Dmitri. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 6:46 PM Eric Maynard < > >> > > > > > > > > eric.w.mayn...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > All good questions Dmitri — I’m especially > >> > interested > >> > > in > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > first > >> > > > > > > > > > one > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> as > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > from what I understand Iceberg tables can have > >> > > metadata > >> > > > > and > >> > > > > > > data > >> > > > > > > > > at > >> > > > > > > > > > > two > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > different paths that we need to vend > credentials > >> > for. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > For iceberg tables, we just use special > >> properties > >> > to > >> > > > > track > >> > > > > > > > these > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > locations. I wonder if we couldn’t do the same > >> for > >> > > > generic > >> > > > > > > > tables. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 3:42 PM Dmitri > >> Bourlatchkov < > >> > > > > > > > > > di...@apache.org> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Hi Yun, > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Please clarify the meaning of the value of > the > >> new > >> > > > > > location > >> > > > > > > > > > > attribute. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > - Is is one value or many? > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > - Is it a URI? > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > - Does it point to any particular file? > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > - Is it a common prefix of all files within a > >> > table? > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > - What happens when a value does not match > >> these > >> > > > > > > expectation? > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dmitri. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On 2025/05/07 21:50:19 yun zou wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi folks, > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I would like to propose to add an optional > >> > > > `location` > >> > > > > > > field > >> > > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > CreateGenricTable Request and > >> LoadGenericTable > >> > > > > response. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > The `location` is the location for the > table, > >> > > which > >> > > > is > >> > > > > > > > common > >> > > > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> most > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > table > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > formats including Iceberg, Delta, Hudi, > csv, > >> > > parquet > >> > > > > > etc. > >> > > > > > > > The > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> location > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > information is critical for loading the > >> table at > >> > > > > engine > >> > > > > > > > side, > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> having a > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > dedicated keyword could help improve the > >> > > robustness > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > > > > cross > >> > > > > > > > > > > engine > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > sharing, instead of relying on the > properties > >> > > passed > >> > > > > by > >> > > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > > > client > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > side. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Furthermore, this information is also > >> required > >> > to > >> > > > > > provide > >> > > > > > > > > > > credential > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > vending capabilities later. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Here is the PR for adding the spec: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1543 > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Looking forward to your reply and feedback! > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Best Regards, > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Yun > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
