Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 rc0

I think we should still do 1.7.2 and not leave it in a broken state. On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 7:56 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Hussein > > We were focusing on 1.8.x. > > Do you still need 1.7.2 or 1.8.0/1.8.1 is good enough for you ? > > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:23 PM H

Re: [VOTE] Allow Row-Lineage with Equality Deletes

+1 (non-binding) Regards Manu On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 2:57 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 > > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 11:13 PM Russell Spitzer > wrote: > > > > The PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12230 is basically > ready now. So let's do a last vote to make

Re: [VOTE] Allow Row-Lineage with Equality Deletes

+1 Regards JB On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 11:13 PM Russell Spitzer wrote: > > The PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12230 is basically ready now. > So let's do a last vote to make sure everyone is aware of the upcoming change. > > Before: > Equality deletes are not allowed to be used when

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 rc0

Hi Hussein We were focusing on 1.8.x. Do you still need 1.7.2 or 1.8.0/1.8.1 is good enough for you ? Regards JB On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:23 PM Hussein Awala wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Is there any intention to proceed with the release or is it completely > cancelled? > > Regards, > Hussein >

Re: [VOTE] Allow Row-Lineage with Equality Deletes

+1 (non-binding) Best, Prashant Singh On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 5:30 PM Gang Wu wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 7:12 AM Steven Wu wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 2:15 PM Russell Spitzer < >> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The PR: https://github.com/ap

[DISCUSS] Rest Catalog 419 Response Code

Hi folks, While working with the Polaris community on an issue[1], I decided to bring this discussion to the Iceberg community mailing list as I believe that the status code 419 in the REST Catalog Open API Spec may have become a source of confusion for the community. In the Iceberg REST Catalog

Re: [VOTE] Allow Row-Lineage with Equality Deletes

+1 (non-binding) On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 7:12 AM Steven Wu wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 2:15 PM Russell Spitzer > wrote: > >> The PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12230 is basically ready >> now. So let's do a last vote to make sure everyone is aware of the upcoming >> cha

[VOTE] Allow Row-Lineage with Equality Deletes

The PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12230 is basically ready now. So let's do a last vote to make sure everyone is aware of the upcoming change. Before: Equality deletes are not allowed to be used when row-lineage is enabled After: Equality deletes are allowed to be used when row-line

Re: [VOTE] Allow Row-Lineage with Equality Deletes

+1 On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 2:15 PM Russell Spitzer wrote: > The PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12230 is basically ready > now. So let's do a last vote to make sure everyone is aware of the upcoming > change. > > Before: > Equality deletes are not allowed to be used when row-lineage

Re: [DISCUSS] PyIceberg 0.9.0 release

Hey folks, While working on the 0.9.0 release candidate, we went through the process of finding deprecation which should be removed in the upcoming release . For the 0.9.0 release, there are

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 rc0

Hi folks, Is there any intention to proceed with the release or is it completely cancelled? Regards, Hussein On Wednesday, January 29, 2025, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi folks, > > in order to merge the LICENSE/NOTICE improvement on our binary > artifacts, I cancel this vote for rc0. > > A

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.8.1 release

+1 for rolling back the AWS SDK update for the patch release. We should get the better fix into main though. On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 8:56 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner wrote: > @Yuya maybe it makes sense to revert the AWS SDK to a version that didn't > introduce those integrity protection changes (added

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.8.1 release

@Yuya maybe it makes sense to revert the AWS SDK to a version that didn't introduce those integrity protection changes (added in 2.30.0) for 1.8.1 and then see how we fix this properly for 1.9.0? I've opened https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12339 to do that. On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 11:24 A

Re: [DISCUSS] Add metadata stats/metrics management on the REST Spec

@Fokko: your point is absolutely valid. We don't want to burden the active catalog instance with returning such a big data set. Otherwise the main responsibility of the catalog could suffer. OTOH there is some info which exists only on the catalog side which is not available elsewhere. This is esp

Re: [DISCUSS] Add metadata stats/metrics management on the REST Spec

Hi Fokko That's an approach I considered but the problem is that the TMS/query engine goes via the REST. So, if the metadata.json exposed by REST doesn't contain the metrics, how can I get it ? If your proposal is to extend the metadata.json with extra metrics, that could be an option. My proposal

Re: [DISCUSS] Add metadata stats/metrics management on the REST Spec

Hey JB, Thanks for the additional context. My main question is, why wouldn't the TMS directly query the metadata? Since the TMS should have access to the data (otherwise it cannot compact it). This would be much faster and more efficient. I share Daniel's concern that these requests could easily r

Re: Remove deprecated table properties

Hey Steven, That makes sense. We can be gentle since there is no real pressure, but it would be nice to get this cleaned up at some point. I want to ensure everyone is comfortable with the deprecation and removal process of table properties. I've updated the PR

Re: [DISCUSS] Add metadata stats/metrics management on the REST Spec

Hi folks, I realized that my first email on this thread needs context to be better understood :) In Apache Polaris TMS (Table Maintenance Service), we "scoped" where Polaris can help to trigger table maintenance jobs: 1. Is table maintenance enabled (in Polaris)? 2. Policies exposed by Polaris (e

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Iceberg release 1.8.0

Hi, I agree with Fokko's sum-up and call for action. Regards JB On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 11:34 AM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > > Thanks for the historical context here. I wasn't aware of the equivalent > between -1 and null. > > It looks like we're all aligned on not retroactively changing the spe

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Iceberg release 1.8.0

Thanks for the historical context here. I wasn't aware of the equivalent between -1 and null. It looks like we're all aligned on not retroactively changing the spec. Let's wrap this up with some actions: - To revert the changes, I've raised the PRs (1.8.x

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.8.1 release

Hi Eduard Thanks for volunteering for the 1.8.1 release. It makes sense to me. I'm working on some Flink related updates, but for 1.9.0. I will do a pass on GitHub Issues. Regards JB On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:27 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > we're currently tracking all is

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.8.1 release

Hi Eduard, Can we add https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12264 to 1.8.1 milestone? It handles a regression on S3-compatible storages (pre-2025 Minio, Ozone, Dell EC etc). BR, Yuya On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 6:28 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner wrote: > Hey everyone, > > we're currently tracking all iss

Re: [DISCUSS] Consolidate docs under Concepts and Project/Terms

I saw the change this morning while looking for the spec, looking good :) Op wo 19 feb 2025 om 02:33 schreef Steven Wu : > agree with Kevin to move "Blogs" and "Talks" into a new "Community" group, > along with the current "Community" page. but it can be tackled in a > separate PR. > > On Tue, Fe

[DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.8.1 release

Hey everyone, we're currently tracking all issues that should go into 1.8.1 in the 1.8.1 milestone . So far, all the issues that were previously added have been backported to 1.8.x. I'm volunteering to be the release manager for 1.8.1 and the questi