Re: [Proposal] Add support for Flink Maintenance in Iceberg

Thanks everyone for the discussion and the votes! With my +1, the result is: +1: 4 (binding), 4 (non-binding) +0: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding) -1: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding) Since the proposal is passed, let us continue with the next steps: - Rod is already working on the SinkV2 implementation

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.2 RC0

Thanks everyone who participated in the vote for Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.2 RC0. The vote result is: +1: 3 (binding), 5 (non-binding) +0: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding) -1: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding) Therefore, the release candidate is passed. (Sorry I accidentally didn't send this out correc

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.2 RC0

Thanks everyone who participated in the vote for Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.2 RC0. The vote result is: +1: 3 (binding), 5 (non-binding) +0: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding) -1: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding) Therefore, the release candidate is passed. Thanks, Amogh Jahagirdar

Re: Seattle Apache Iceberg Meetup

https://lists.apache.org/thread/tw9bpqyh76vfw7284rooboomhzzx8xnd On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 10:09 AM Kevin Liu wrote: > Hey folks, > > We're starting this community meetup in Seattle, more below. > > > *Seattle Apache Iceberg Meetup *May 15th, 5 PM - 8 PM in the Seattle area > > Come to meet and gre

Seattle Apache Iceberg Meetup

Hey folks, We're starting this community meetup in Seattle, more below. *Seattle Apache Iceberg Meetup *May 15th, 5 PM - 8 PM in the Seattle area Come to meet and greet folks working with Apache Iceberg and Open Table Formats! We are hosting a meetup in Seattle in honor of the inaugural Iceberg

Re: Exploring Nessie Integration for Iceberg Tables: Insights Needed

Hi Pani, > My understanding is that Nessie primarily integrates with Apache Iceberg, offering versioned metadata management specifically for Iceberg tables ATM - yes. > if there is a need to maintain non-Iceberg tables alongside Iceberg tables, the Hive Metastore would still be necessary Using

Re: Materialized Views: Next Steps

Well, everybody that actively contributed to the discussion on the original google doc was in consensus. That's why I brought up the topic at the Community Sync on the 2024-02-14 (https://youtu.be/uAQVGd5zV4I?t=890) to raise the awareness of the broader community. After which the discussion abo

Re: Materialized Views: Next Steps

The only consensus the community had was on the object model through the most recent voting thread [1]. This kind of consensus was not present during the doc discussions, and this should be evident from the fact the last doc state listed 5 alternatives with no particular conclusion. I am not quite

Re: Materialized Views: Next Steps

The original google doc discussed multiple aspects of the Materialized View spec. One was the storage model while others were related to the metadata. After we (Micah, Szehon, you, me) reached con

Re: Materialized Views: Next Steps

Thanks Jan. I think we moved on to more alignment steps beyond that doc a while ago. After that doc, we have discussed the topic further in 2 dev list threads and one more doc (with strictly two options for

Re: Materialized Views: Next Steps

Thanks Walaa for trying to move things along. However I don't think it's a good idea to start a separate discussion about the metadata for materialized views because we already had this discussion and reached consensus in this google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UnhldHhe3Grz8JBngwX