Re: [Discuss] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields for Standardization

Hi everyone, Happy new year! I've updated the proposal and PR with the optional snapshot summary fields documented in a new Appendix in table spec and addressed review comments. You can find the links below: - proposal doc

Re: [Discuss] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields for Standardization

Thank you all for the feedback! It appears we have reached a consensus on documenting the snapshot summary fields. Additionally, there is a preference to document these fields outside the main body of the spec and make sure they are not tied to the spec version. Two options have been suggested:

Re: [Discuss] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields for Standardization

I'm in favor of this as well. While working on PyIceberg I had to deduce this from the Java code, having a more condensed version in the appendix of the spec would be great. Kind regards, Fokko Op ma 16 dec 2024 om 14:21 schreef Jean-Baptiste Onofré : > Hi, > > yes I agree, I don't think we have

Re: [Discuss] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields for Standardization

Hi, yes I agree, I don't think we have to couple of spec version. Regards JB On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:17 PM Russell Spitzer wrote: > > I want to float this back up, I think this is a really good idea for cross > engine support. I don't think we have to tie this to any specific Spec > versio

Re: [Discuss] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields for Standardization

I'm generally in support of this as well, but I think we should put this in an appendix as opposed to the main body of the spec. -Dan On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 2:18 PM Russell Spitzer wrote: > I want to float this back up, I think this is a really good idea for cross > engine support. I don't thi

Re: [Discuss] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields for Standardization

I want to float this back up, I think this is a really good idea for cross engine support. I don't think we have to tie this to any specific Spec version since they are just recommendations so I think we can do this at any time On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 1:31 PM Szehon Ho wrote: > This makes sense

Re: [Discuss] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields for Standardization

This makes sense to me generally, I've tried a few times to search in the spec to find a list of possible snapshot summary properties, and was a bit surprised to not find them there. So I think this would be a nice addition. I'm curious if there's any historical reason it's not been included in t

Re: [Discuss] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields for Standardization

Thanks for driving this Honah! It's important to have a consistent naming scheme so that we don't need to worry about edge cases when using multiple engines, and possibly have to deal with migrations. Also, since users can store arbitrary key/value pairs in the summary property, it's good to docu