+1 (non-binding)
* validated checksum and signature
* checked license & ran RAT checks
* ran build and tests with JDK11
When verifying signatures I noticed this warning:
gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-iceberg-1.5.1.tar.gz'
gpg: Signature made Thu 18 Apr 2024 09:03:16 PM CEST
gpg:
+1 for the proposal.
- Ajantha
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 7:29 AM Benny Chow wrote:
> +1 for separate view and table objects. Walaa's Spark
> implementation demonstrates how little change it takes on the Iceberg APIs
> to start sharing MVs between engines.
>
> Thanks
> Benny
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2
Hi Gen,
*Unaligned checkpoint & AsyncIO*
Let's talk about a concrete example: DataFileRewrite. The task has 3 steps:
1. Planning - this creates multiple RewriteFileGroups, each of which
contains the list of small files which should be compacted to a single new
file
2. Rewriting data f
Hi Peter,
> Flink job doing a quick small file reduction after collecting several
commits
Triggering maintenance tasks as soon as possible is a valid point to me.
But I'm not sure about the priority of it, compared to maintenance tasks
which may happen with a delay of few seconds.
> Single, cont
+1 for this proposal.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 3:40 PM Ajantha Bhat wrote:
> +1 for the proposal.
>
> - Ajantha
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 7:29 AM Benny Chow wrote:
>
>> +1 for separate view and table objects. Walaa's Spark
>> implementation demonstrates how little change it takes on the Icebe
Hi Iceberg Team,
Flink has its own FileSystem implementation. See:
https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-docs-master/docs/deployment/filesystems/overview/
.
This FileSystem already has several implementations:
- Hadoop
- Azure
- S3
- Google Cloud Storage
- ...
As a general rule
+1 on separate view and table metadata
I'd like to share our experience of such a design at Netflix for years. The
changes to the view spec are minimal and there are no changes to the
Iceberg table metadata other than tracking an additional table property for
capturing freshness. The storage table
