Let me recap and see if we are on the same page.
1) we have some consensus on the refresh-state on the storage table. it
would contain these fields: UUID, snapshot-id (for table) or version-id
(for view), namespace, table.
2) there is no consensus if lineage info is needed in the view definition.
w
Hi Jan
Both sound good to me. (No lineage in views and assumption about UUIDs
being unique across catalogs). I hope we get to voting soon on your PR..
Thanks
Benny
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 10:52 AM Jan Kaul
wrote:
> Hi Benny,
>
> thanks for bringing up the UUID issue. It is my understanding t
On 2024/09/27 17:50:34 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> I think it would be great to have Iceberg Summit 2025, community event, but
> maybe this time a hybrid event.
> Also, regarding the number of talks received by the selection committee for
> Iceberg Summit 2024, I would suggest (for the future
+1 (non binding)
Regards
JB
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 11:36 PM rdb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to vote on PR #10955 that has been open for a while with the changes
> to add new type promotion cases. After discussion, the PR has been scoped
> down to keep complexity low. It
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 1:45 AM Micah Kornfield
wrote:
> I'm -0.0 as worded currently. I think there are some more aspects that
> should be defined for date->timestamp/timestamp_ns promotion (left comments
> on the PR). The addition of an Unknown type seems like a good addition.
>
