Re: [VOTE] Add Variant type to Iceberg Spec

Thanks Russell for following up on this. On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 2:50 PM Russell Spitzer wrote: > Given that I think we are all in agreement, and Micah has signed off on > the PR I think we can go ahead and merge this one. > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:16 AM Aihua Xu wrote: > >> Thank you all

Re: [VOTE] Add Variant type to Iceberg Spec

Given that I think we are all in agreement, and Micah has signed off on the PR I think we can go ahead and merge this one. On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:16 AM Aihua Xu wrote: > Thank you all for the discussion. Micah raised a valid concern about > including a specification that has not yet been fin

Re: [VOTE] Add Variant type to Iceberg Spec

Thank you all for the discussion. Micah raised a valid concern about including a specification that has not yet been finalized in Parquet. As we discussed earlier, the community has shown interest in introducing the basic variant type and shredding in V3. >From my perspective, while the change is

Re: [VOTE] Add Variant type to Iceberg Spec

I am +1 on adding it to the spec and not waiting for Parquet. It feels like a better 2-way door decision compared to being blocked by Parquet ratification timeline. -Jack On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 10:05 AM Micah Kornfield wrote: > 2. We aren't going to formally close V3 Spec yet, so if we do end

Re: [VOTE] Add Variant type to Iceberg Spec

> > 2. We aren't going to formally close V3 Spec yet, so if we do end up in a > situation where we want to close the spec and Parquet has not removed the > tag, we can remove the variant from the spec then. (I think that scenario > is unlikely) This seems like it puts the effort at the wrong side

Re: [VOTE] Add Variant type to Iceberg Spec

+1 and I agree with Russell. v3 is still under development, so I think it's reasonable to include Variant based on the current Parquet spec. On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 10:35 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > I second Russell here. I think it makes sense to add variant type to > V3 spec, even if the

Re: [VOTE] Add Variant type to Iceberg Spec

I second Russell here. I think it makes sense to add variant type to V3 spec, even if the implementation details will come later. So +1 to add in the spec. Regards JB On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 6:21 PM Russell Spitzer wrote: > > I'm +1, > > 1. I don't think we are going to change our decision on w

Re: [VOTE] Add Variant type to Iceberg Spec

+1 from my side. I don't think we should be blocked on Parquet's finalization On Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 02:48 Xavier Bai wrote: > +1, not-binding > > Russell Spitzer 于2024年11月26日周二 01:21写道： > >> I'm +1, >> >> 1. I don't think we are going to change our decision on whether to >> include variants bas

Re: [VOTE] Add Variant type to Iceberg Spec

+1, not-binding Russell Spitzer 于2024年11月26日周二 01:21写道： > I'm +1, > > 1. I don't think we are going to change our decision on whether to include > variants based on the timing of Parquet ratification > 2. We aren't going to formally close V3 Spec yet, so if we do end up in a > situation where we

Re: [VOTE] Add Variant type to Iceberg Spec

I'm +1, 1. I don't think we are going to change our decision on whether to include variants based on the timing of Parquet ratification 2. We aren't going to formally close V3 Spec yet, so if we do end up in a situation where we want to close the spec and Parquet has not removed the tag, we can re

Re: [VOTE] Add Variant type to Iceberg Spec

My (non-binding) vote is -1 until the variant spec is formally adopted in Parquet. On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 2:51 PM Aihua Xu wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've updated the Iceberg spec to include the new Variant type as part of > #10831 . The changes are