Re: Iceberg python library sync

Hi everyone, FYI, the next community python library sync meeting will be on Tuesday (03/25/2025) at 9 AM (US/Pacific). Here is the meeting agenda with the topics to discuss: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oMKodaZJrOJjPfc8PDVAoTdl02eGQKHlhwuggiw7s9U/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0#bookmark=id.3j1sjuw9nsc5.

[DISCUSS] Inconsistency between java implementation and spec about partition-spec and schema in v1 table

Hi: We found an inconsistency between java implementation and spec about partition-spec and schema in v1 table. In spec, it says in v1 table partition-spec and schema are required but deprecated: https://iceberg.apache.org/spec/#table-metadata While in java implementation, they are both optional

Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistency between java implementation and spec about partition-spec and schema in v1 table

Hi Renjie, Thanks for raising this! For context, here's the iceberg-rust PR where we found the inconsistency. I am also in favor of approach 2 for backwards compatibility reasons. Perhaps, we can include this behavior in "Appendix E: Format versio

Re: [Discuss] Apache Iceberg 1.9.0 release

Can I get this reviewed and merged; gives all hadoop filesystems with bulk delete calls the ability to issue bulk deletes up to their page sizes; off by default. Tested all the way through iceberg to AWS S3 london. https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10233 On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 at 12:32, Yuya

Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated

+1 (non-binding) for the updated 409 Code On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 18:30, Ryan Blue wrote: > From the issue, it looks like we're using 400 for this because that's what > the Java client was returning as a generic or unhandled error. I don't > think that's a good reason to standardize on 400 now th

Re: [Discuss] Apache Iceberg 1.9.0 release

Hi, can we include https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12264 to fix the S3-compatible storage issue? We downgraded the problematic library in https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12339, but the issue is still present in the main branch. On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 8:47 PM Ajantha Bhat wrote: >

Re: [Discuss] Apache Iceberg 1.9.0 release

We decided to have a fast follow up on the things that missed release train of 1.8.0 during community sync. More details here: https://lists.apache.org/thread/wvz5sd7pmh5ww1yqhsxpt1kwf993276j On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 4:53 PM Russell Spitzer wrote: > Can you please rehash the plan? I thought we j

Re: [Discuss] Apache Iceberg 1.9.0 release

Can you please rehash the plan? I thought we just did a release last month and were aiming for a three month schedule. I may have missed something On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 6:00 AM Ajantha Bhat wrote: > Hey everyone, > > Following the plan from the 1.8.0 release, I'll be handling the 1.9.0 > relea

[Discuss] Apache Iceberg 1.9.0 release

Hey everyone, Following the plan from the 1.8.0 release, I'll be handling the 1.9.0 release. We have several major updates ready: - *Partition stats APIs:* All core APIs for partition statistics have been merged, unblocking engines like Dremio, Trino, and Hive that were waiting for this