Hi Xuanwo
Thanks for the feedback. Fair enough.
Regards
JB
Le mer. 16 avr. 2025 à 05:44, Xuanwo a écrit :
> Hi, JB
>
> Thank you for starting this discussion. Based on my experience with
> Parquet, when a specification allows readers and writers to freely choose
> which features to use, it oft
Hi Renjie,
The first one for the proposed new API is here:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12774
Thanks, Peter
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 05:40 Renjie Liu wrote:
> Hi, Peter:
>
> Thanks for the effort. I totally agree with splitting them into smaller
> prs to move forward.
>
> I'm quite intere
Hi, JB
Thank you for starting this discussion. Based on my experience with Parquet,
when a specification allows readers and writers to freely choose which features
to use, it often leads to the entire ecosystem relying on only the minimal
feature set. As a result, many valuable features are ove
Hi, Peter:
Thanks for the effort. I totally agree with splitting them into smaller prs
to move forward.
I'm quite interested in this topic, and please ping me in those splitted
prs and I'll help to review.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:22 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
> Awesome ! Th
Hi Eduard,
I’d love to be the release manager of 1.8.2.
Thanks,
Manu
Eduard Tudenhöfner 于2025年4月16日 周三02:04写道：
> So it sounds like we may want to do 1.8.2 with the updated Parquet version
> as that should be very low risk.
> Does anyone want to volunteer and be the release manager for 1.8.2?
>
Thanks for your feedback.
I got your points. My question was more about the features that an engine
(reader/writer) should support: for v3 it means that an engine will have to
implement/support all features from v3 (required features). They can stay
on v2 or fully update to v3. That makes sense to
Ah yes agree: I don’t want to block 1.9.0 release. I was surprising to not
seeing the distributions. We can include it for next release.
Le mar. 15 avr. 2025 à 19:40, Russell Spitzer a
écrit :
> I agree we should be distributing them, but I wouldn't block 1.9.0 for it
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 a
I'm not a big fan of this, I am currently a strong supporter of the V3 is
V3 approach. This is one of the reasons we decided to make row-lineage
mandatory, we want to avoid encouraging engines from selectively adopting
requirements.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 1:42 PM Fokko Driesprong wrote:
> Hey J
Hey JB,
Thanks for raising this. This would be another way of indicating (next to
the format version) what's supported. At first glance, I'm reluctant to add
this. For two reasons:
1. Because of the added complexity, both from a technical perspective,
and because it also might confuse downs
So it sounds like we may want to do 1.8.2 with the updated Parquet version
as that should be very low risk.
Does anyone want to volunteer and be the release manager for 1.8.2?
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 5:29 PM Ryan Blue wrote:
> I agree with Fokko. It's a good idea to get a release out soon that h
I agree we should be distributing them, but I wouldn't block 1.9.0 for it
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 12:12 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Thanks Russell, I remember this issue.
>
> My question is:
> 1. As we build the distributions (main and hive), do we want to
> publish as it is (and let the us
Hi Everyone,
Starting this thread to resume our discussion on how to reference table
identifiers from Iceberg metadata, a key aspect of the view specification,
particularly in relation to the MV (materialized view) extensions.
I had the chance to speak offline with a few community members to bett
Thanks Russell, I remember this issue.
My question is:
1. As we build the distributions (main and hive), do we want to
publish as it is (and let the users extend)
2. If 1 is not good enough, should we still build the distributions ?
Just wondering ;) Personally, I think we should distribute the
d
We had a ticket about improving kafka connect distribution,
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/12507 because the current docs
require you to build your own kafka-connect zip.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 8:15 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Another point that I saw: the kafka-connect runtime d
+1
checked the signatures
compiled the code
run some tests
Aihua Xu ezt írta (időpont: 2025. ápr. 14., H, 0:54):
> +1 (non-binding).
>
> Verified against Snowflake build.
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 12:20 AM Yuya Ebihara <
> yuya.ebih...@starburstdata.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> Tr
15 matches
Mail list logo
