... but the Polaris Server still has to reconcile the metadata for conflicting changes (before it commits), right?
Thanks, Dmitri. On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 7:22 PM Eric Maynard <eric.w.mayn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitri, thanks for checking the doc out. > > Indeed, in this implementation, the server does not apply any "decision > logic" at all to the commits. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that the > decision logic applied is only to inspect the commits and check for their > mutual consent to deconflict. The server trusts this mutual consent. > > There's a small section about other strategies at the end of the doc -- > essentially, I think we could implement various deconfliction strategies > and allow them to be mixed together, like we do with the FileIOFactory > implementations for example. > > --EM > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 3:57 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi Eric, > > > > This sounds like an interesting approach to me. > > > > I wonder how much decision logic do you envision Polaris to perform for > > de-conflictling? Is it mostly approving based submitted "Writer" ID > checks > > or will Polaris validate actual table changes? > > > > I added some comments to the doc too. > > > > Thanks, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 6:33 PM Eric Maynard <eric.w.mayn...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Wanted to share this short design doc > > > < > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tkqBOYtkcA7fbDmhIAE6_6Jmus5WwP6vS6jA_JHp4Ms > > > > > > > for > > > a simple method of allowing conflicting commits to both be committed. > If > > > implemented, this would allow e.g. two writers doing append-only > > operations > > > to a table in Polaris to always succeed. > > > > > > If you're interested, please take a look. In the meantime, I'll be > > > preparing a small draft PR to serve as a reference implementation. > > > > > > --EM > > > > > >
