Sorry for the previous email, it was sent by accident without complete
reply. Please discard the previous email, and see the whole reply in this
email.
Thanks for Micah and Ryan's reply.
As Szehon already pointed out, this change is to allow creation of
*new* multi-arg
transforms. I remember ther
Thanks for Micah and Ryan's reply.
As Szehon already pointed out, this change is to allow creation of *new*
multi-arg transforms. I remember there's a discussion in the google doc
whether targeting this as a `V3` spec change, it turns out that we may
support this as long as we make sure old writer
Really excited for the upcoming 0.6.0 release and its new features! Big
thanks to everyone for their hard work.
I'm looking forward to the community feedback and future enhancements.
Best regards,
Honah
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 1:56 PM Daniel Weeks wrote:
> I'm also strongly in favor of getting
Thanks for working on this, Szehon and AdvanceXY! I'm glad to see this
picking up for the v3 work.
I also want to address Micah's comments and suggest how we can do better
next time. From Micah's suggestion, there are 3 steps: 1. Discuss the
feature, 2. Build 2 reference implementations, and 3. ho
Hi,
This would not be retrofitting existing partition transforms, but just
allowing for the creation of new multi-arg transforms. Is the concern that
some implementations are never expecting new transforms to be added? Old
implementations would indeed not be able to read Iceberg tables created
w
