Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.9.1 RC0

+0 (non binding) - Signature and checksum are good - ASF header present in expected file - No binary found in the source distribution - Build is OK - Tested with spark and flink, need some update on Polaris - The aws-bundle, azure-bundle, gcp-bundle, kafka-connect-runtime LICENSE should include co

Re: Should DDL operations always create new snapshots?

Hi Vladimir, I understand the problem now. In your example: v1: CREATE TABLE t (a) {} v2: INSERT INTO t VALUES (1) {a=1} v3: ALTER TABLE t ADD COLUMN b {a=1, b=null} v4: UPDATE t SET b = 2 {a=1, b=2} there are only 2 snapshots: at v2 and at v4. Let's call the snapshots s1 (at v2) and s2 (at v

Re: Hive 4 support

Hi, I'd like to bring attention to this again. As you know, the hive-metastore module (which provides the HiveCatalog) is built against Hive 2. I have a PR, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12721, for building and testing the hive-metastore module against Hive 2, 3 and 4. Daniel Weeks looked

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.9.1 RC0

+1 (Binding) All the normal things and also checked manually ---> scala> import org.apache.iceberg.IcebergBuild import org.apache.iceberg.IcebergBuild scala> IcebergBuild.version res0: String = 1.9.1 On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 4:32 PM Russell Spitzer wrote: > Hi Y'all, > > I propose that we rele

[VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.9.1 RC0

Hi Y'all, I propose that we release the following RC as the official Apache Iceberg 1.9.1 release. The commit ID is 5541cf84b9e139d8dd22db44db7f592c3a2d * This corresponds to the tag: apache-iceberg-1.9.1-rc0 * https://github.com/apache/iceberg/commits/apache-iceberg-1.9.1-rc0 * https://githu

Re: Spark 4.0/Iceberg Integration Merged – Spark 3.5 Merges Can Resume

Thanks Huaxin for your patience while getting this through! On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:20 PM Steve wrote: > Thanks Huaxin! Great work and looking forward to the spark 4.0 and > iceberg! > > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 15:26 Ryan Blue wrote: > >> I agree, thank you for working on this! It's great to

Re: Spark 4.0/Iceberg Integration Merged – Spark 3.5 Merges Can Resume

Thanks Huaxin! Great work and looking forward to the spark 4.0 and iceberg! On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 15:26 Ryan Blue wrote: > I agree, thank you for working on this! It's great to have this merged. > > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 7:47 AM Russell Spitzer > wrote: > >> Thanks for getting this in! >> >

Re: [Discuss] Iceberg 1.9.1 Release

Hey Russell, Thanks for driving this. Talking about making the security scanner happy: https://github.com/RussellSpitzer/iceberg/pull/5 JB, let me know if you need any help with the Avro release! Kind regards, Fokko Op vr 16 mei 2025 om 19:39 schreef Russell Spitzer < russell.spit...@gmail.com>

Re: [Discuss] Iceberg 1.9.1 Release

Hey Russell, Thanks for driving this. Talking about making the security scanner happy: https://github.com/RussellSpitzer/iceberg/pull/5 JB, let me know if you need any help with the Avro release! Kind regards, Fokko Op vr 16 mei 2025 om 19:56 schreef Driesprong, Fokko : > Hey Russell, > > Than

Re: [Discussion] Versioned SQL UDFs (Catalog routines) in Iceberg

Update on the progress. I had a meeting today with Yufei and Yun.zou to discuss the UDF proposal. We covered several key points, though some are still open for further discussion: a) *UDF Versioning*: Do we truly need versioning for UDFs at this stage? We explored the possibility of simplifying t

Re: [Discuss] Iceberg 1.9.1 Release

Steven explained the Flink issue to me, Flink 2.0 isn't in 1.9.0 so not an issue. On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:20 PM Russell Spitzer wrote: > Ok so far of the lists proposed above I only picked 2 fixes that apply > cleanly and (we double checked) > actually apply to 1.9.0. Some of the fixes above

Re: [Discuss] Iceberg 1.9.1 Release

Ok so far of the lists proposed above I only picked 2 fixes that apply cleanly and (we double checked) actually apply to 1.9.0. Some of the fixes above need other commits which aren't in 1.9.0 so aren't an issue. If anyone else has any other issues let me know. The only one i'm not sure about is

Re: [VOTE] Add commit timestamp to CommitReport

Thanks Yufei. I'm still seeking more votes here. Manu On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 1:37 AM Yufei Gu wrote: > +1 I'm OK to add it as long as it's optional. > > Yufei > > > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 8:47 PM Manu Zhang > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> The background is that we schedule maintenance jobs based

Re: Discuss proposal - IRC APIs for Multi-Statement Multi-Table Transactions

Thanks for the updated proposal Drew! My preference for using the catalog authored timestamp is to minimize changes to the REST spec so we can have good backwards compatibility. I have quickly put together a draft proposal on how this should work. Looking forward to feedback and discussion. Draft

Re: [VOTE] File Format API

Thanks Ryan for your support! I know when you have time, you will check this proposal as well. I understand that V3 is important. I’ve been following the votes and PRs and can see the great progress being made. Thanks to everyone contributing! Please feel free to reach out if I can help with revie