Re: Deprecate DynamodbCatalog

Perfect ! Thanks ! Regards JB On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 7:18 PM Jack Ye wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback JB! Yes, I was originally intended to use this thread > to collect any concern of us flagging this catalog as deprecated. > > If I don't receive any objection in the next 5 days, I will go a

Java Iceberg 2.0: Hadoop upgrade

Hi everyone, I want to discuss adding the Hadoop upgrade to the list after moving to Iceberg 2.0. We still compile against Hadoop 2.7.3 to ensure we support as many users as possible. Hadoop 2.7.3 was released August 2016 and is not maintained anymore

Re: Java Iceberg 2.0: Hadoop upgrade

I would be +1 on dropping Hadoop 2.7.3 when moving to Iceberg 2.0.0. If people want to use that Hadoop version, then there would still be the Iceberg 1.x.y versions available for usage. Another related topic would be the current Hive support, which essentially makes it difficult for the project to

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg Rust 0.2.0 RC1

+1 [x] Download links are valid. [x] Checksums and signatures. [x] LICENSE/NOTICE files exist [x] No unexpected binary files [x] All source files have ASF headers [x] Can compile from source On 15.02.24 17:00, Xuanwo wrote: +1 non-binding So happy to get a v0.2.0 release! [x] Download links a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg Rust 0.2.0 RC1

+1 [x] Download links are valid. [x] Checksums and signatures. [x] LICENSE/NOTICE files exist [x] No unexpected binary files [x] All source files have ASF headers [x] Can compile from source Jan Kaul 于2024年2月16日周五 21:45写道： > +1 > > [x] Download links are valid. > [x] Checksums and signatures. >

Re: Java Iceberg 2.0: Hadoop upgrade

Hi Fokko, I agree to remove Hadoop 2.7.3 and bump to 3.x for Iceberg 2.0.0. If we want to be based on Java 11+ (17 would be good imho), we have to check the dependencies. I'm not sure all of our dependencies support JDK17 today. Regards JB On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:09 AM Fokko Driesprong wrot

Re: Support permission concepts in REST spec

Hi Jack, It's a good idea and it has to be pluggable. I think we could have a TableConfigResponse and ViewConfigResponse that could contain the policy field + key/value pair open list. The idea is let the REST backend to deal with permission ( We would be able to extend permission this way. Gen

[DISCUSS] What do we plan for Iceberg 2.0.0 ?

Hi guys, During the last community meeting, we started to quickly discuss Iceberg 2.0. I was quite surprised it came during the community meeting because I don't remember having a previous discussion (on the mailing list) about that. So, I would like to have to start an open discussion about our

Re: [Discuss] add a new task-type to file scan task JSON serialization

I have updated the PR with Java implementation for StaticDataTask. As I updated the PR description, we can add support for other task types incrementally to keep the PRs relatively small. [3] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9728 On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 4:24 PM Jack Ye wrote: > Nice, just

Re: Support permission concepts in REST spec

Hi Jack, I think this is an interesting idea but I think there are some practical concerns (I posted them inline). - general access patterns, like read-only, read-write, admin full access, > etc. Is this intended to be information only? I would hope the tokens and REST API vending to clients wou

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg Rust 0.2.0 RC1

+1 non-binding [x] Download links are valid. [x] Checksums and signatures. [x] LICENSE/NOTICE files exist [x] No unexpected binary files [x] All source files have ASF headers [x] Can compile from source On 2024/02/15 12:52:38 Fokko Driesprong wrote: > Hello, Apache Iceberg Rust Community, > > T

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg Rust 0.2.0 RC1

+1 non-binding, Verified checksum/signatures, license/notice files, ASF headers and ran build and tests. Thanks, Amogh Jahagirdar On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:52 AM Chojan Shang wrote: > +1 non-binding > > [x] Download links are valid. > [x] Checksums and signatures. > [x] LICENSE/NOTICE files

Re: Deprecate DynamodbCatalog

+1 as well for deprecation On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 1:08 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Perfect ! Thanks ! > > Regards > JB > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 7:18 PM Jack Ye wrote: > > > > Thanks for the feedback JB! Yes, I was originally intended to use this > thread to collect any concern of us fl

Re: Java Iceberg 2.0: Hadoop upgrade

+1 for upgrading Hadoop dependency versions. And I echo the same thoughts as Eduard for Iceberg's JDK 8 requirement. It will be good to have at least Java 11/17 as the minimum required version. - Ajantha On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 7:47 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Fokko, > > I agree to rem

Re: [Discussion] Iceberg 1.5.0 release

Thanks Everyone. As of now all the required PRs have been merged. I will start the release work and try to have an RC by Monday. I may need PMC support for uploading some artifacts. I will contact offline using slack. - Ajantha On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 9:25 PM Manu Zhang wrote: > I'd like to hav

Re: Deprecate DynamodbCatalog

+1 for deprecation and removal by 2.0 version. - Ajantha On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 4:23 AM Daniel Weeks wrote: > +1 as well for deprecation > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 1:08 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > >> Perfect ! Thanks ! >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 7:18 PM Jack Ye

Materialized view integration with REST spec

Hi everyone, As we are discussing the spec change for materialized view, there has been a missing aspect that is technically also related, and might affect the MV spec design: *how do we want to add MV support to the REST spec?* I would like to discuss this in a new thread to collect people's tho

Re: [Discussion] Iceberg 1.5.0 release

Thanks for doing the release Ajantha. I can help out with the release, so just ping me on Slack. Eduard On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 2:22 AM Ajantha Bhat wrote: > Thanks Everyone. > As of now all the required PRs have been merged. > I will start the release work and try to have an RC by Monday. > >