Re: [DISCUSS] Table Identifiers in Iceberg View Spec

2025-04-24 Thread Manu Zhang
> > For example, if we want to validate that the tables referenced in the view > exist, how can we do that when default-catalog isn't defined, since the > view hasn't been created or loaded yet? I don't think this is related to view spec. How do we validate that a table exists without a default ca

[RESULT] [VOTE] Small spec change for default values

2025-04-24 Thread Ryan Blue
With 13 +1 votes and no -1 or +0, this passes. Thanks everyone! This should go in soon, we're just adding some examples and making slight clarifications to the wording. On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 12:40 PM Daniel Weeks wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025, 3:12 PM Anton Okolnychyi > wrot

Re: [DISCUSS] Table Identifiers in Iceberg View Spec

2025-04-24 Thread Walaa Eldin Moustafa
Hi Jan, I think we still share the same understanding. Just to clarify: when I referred to late binding as “similar” to the proposal, I was acknowledging the distinction between view-level and table-level resolution. But as you noted, both follow a late binding model. That said, this still raises

Re: [VOTE] Make namespace separator configurable in REST Spec

2025-04-24 Thread Ryan Blue
While I agree that the configurable separator is the best solution that balances trade-offs, I don't think that we should move forward when there has been a veto from the community. In Iceberg and most ASF communities, votes are intended to confirm consensus --- not to make decisions. Since we don

Re: [VOTE] Make namespace separator configurable in REST Spec

2025-04-24 Thread Xuanwo
+1 (no-binding) Personally I don't want this change, but I haven't found any other ways to address issue #10338. It seems that this proposal is the best solution available. On Thu, Apr 24, 2025, at 23:36, Zac Blanco wrote: > +1 (nb) > > On 2024/08/20 07:05:45 Robert Stupp wrote: >> -1 (nb) >>

Re: [VOTE] Make namespace separator configurable in REST Spec

2025-04-24 Thread Zac Blanco
+1 (nb) On 2024/08/20 07:05:45 Robert Stupp wrote: > -1 (nb) > > On 16.08.24 17:46, Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote: > > +1 (nb) to the spec change. > > > > Cheers, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 4:31 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner > > wrote: > > > > Hey everyone, > > > > as I mentioned o

Re: [DISCUSS] Table Identifiers in Iceberg View Spec

2025-04-24 Thread Jan Kaul
Yes, I have the same understanding. The view catalog is resolved at query time. As you mentioned before, it's good to distinguish between the physical catalog and it's reference used in SQL statements. The important part is that the physical catalog of the view and the tables referenced in it'