Re: [Discuss] Apache Iceberg 1.9.0 release

Hi Ajantha, Thanks for driving the release. Can we include https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12120? On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:18 AM Steve Loughran wrote: > > Can I get this reviewed and merged; gives all hadoop filesystems with bulk > delete calls the ability to issue bulk deletes up to th

Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistency between java implementation and spec about partition-spec and schema in v1 table

I also believe that the Java impl and the spec are correct for V1. The TableMetadataParser reads *schemas * / *partition_specs

Re: [DISCUSS] Move iceberg-cpp step forward

Hi Xuanwo, Thanks for bringing this up. I'm not a cpp expert, but following this with great interest. I think this is a very promising approach since the memory model is already the same across projects (Arrow). Kind regards, Fokko Op vr 14 mrt 2025 om 08:53 schreef Xuanwo : > Hi, everyone > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 RC3

+1 (binding) Checked signatures/checksums/licenses Kind regards, Fokko Op do 13 mrt 2025 om 14:01 schreef Jean-Baptiste Onofré : > Hi folks, > > We fixed the issue with CTAS and refreshing vended credentials in S3. > So I propose that we release the following RC as the official Apache > Iceberg

Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistency between java implementation and spec about partition-spec and schema in v1 table

I think there are two problems here: 1. As Fokko and Eduard mentioned, Glue has produced invalid v1 tables. 2. The java implementation didn't do a sanity check about table metadata for required fields. We could follow java implementation in other languages, but this seems a workaround for dealing

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 RC3

+1 (non-binding) Verified signature, checksum, and license. Tested against JDK 17 (`17.0.6-zulu`). Also ran against pyiceberg's integration tests . Thanks for running the release! Best, Kevin Liu On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 6:30 AM Fokko Driespro

Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated

+1 for 409 On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 5:11 PM Daniel Weeks wrote: > +1 as well for 409 > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:43 PM Ryan Blue wrote: > >> +1 for the updated 409 code. >> >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:41 PM Yufei Gu wrote: >> >>> +1. Thanks Eduard! >>> >>> Yufei >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2

Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistency between java implementation and spec about partition-spec and schema in v1 table

I agree with Fokko to add the current behavior to the Implementation Notes section. With schemas vs schema and partitions_specs vs partition_spec, it is the logical fallback when the required field for the V1 table is missing. > Read liberally and write strictly. This has been mentioned a couple

Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated

+1. Thanks Eduard! Yufei On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:46 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner wrote: > I have updated the spec to use 409 in order to indicate the > NamespaceNotEmptyException > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:12 PM Christian Thiel < > christian.t.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) for the

Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated

+1 as well for 409 On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:43 PM Ryan Blue wrote: > +1 for the updated 409 code. > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:41 PM Yufei Gu wrote: > >> +1. Thanks Eduard! >> >> Yufei >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:46 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < >> etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> I h

Re: [VOTE] Minor simplifications for Geo Spec

Makes sense. +1 (non-binding) On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:07 AM Jia Yu wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thank you! > > On 2025/03/19 00:01:00 Szehon Ho wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > While working on the reference implementation for Geometry/Geography > spec, > > we noticed some parts that can be s

[VOTE] Minor simplifications for Geo Spec

Hi everyone, While working on the reference implementation for Geometry/Geography spec, we noticed some parts that can be simplified for this first version: 1. Default values should always be null (requires WKT serialization logic, for not many real world use cases) 2. JSON type serializ

Re: [VOTE] Minor simplifications for Geo Spec

+1 (non-binding) Thank you! On 2025/03/19 00:01:00 Szehon Ho wrote: > Hi everyone, > > While working on the reference implementation for Geometry/Geography spec, > we noticed some parts that can be simplified for this first version: > >1. Default values should always be null (requires WKT s

Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistency between java implementation and spec about partition-spec and schema in v1 table

Our general policy in the past has been to accept potentially invalid metadata as long as we can reason about it or until we get to a point where we have to throw an error. Read liberally and write strictly. I wouldn’t want to change the spec to match an incorrect writer but there is nothing wron

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 RC3

+1 (binding) verified signatures/checksums/RAT checks. Ran build/test against JDK17 Thanks, Amogh Jahagirdar On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 8:57 PM Kevin Liu wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > Verified signature, checksum, and license. Tested against JDK 17 > (`17.0.6-zulu`). > Also ran against pyiceberg's i

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 RC3

+1 (binding) verified sigs, checksums, rat. Ran Build/test On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 10:45 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (binding) > verified signatures/checksums/RAT checks. Ran build/test against JDK17 > > Thanks, > Amogh Jahagirdar > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 8:57 PM Kevin L

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 RC3

+1 (binding) verified sigs/checksums/tests On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 4:58 AM Russell Spitzer wrote: > +1 (binding) > verified sigs, checksums, rat. Ran Build/test > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 10:45 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> verified signatures/checksums/R

Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated

+1 for the updated 409 code. On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:41 PM Yufei Gu wrote: > +1. Thanks Eduard! > > Yufei > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:46 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < > etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I have updated the spec to use 409 in order to indicate the >> NamespaceNotEmptyException

Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistency between java implementation and spec about partition-spec and schema in v1 table

Hi everyone, Thanks for raising this. I believe the Java implementation and the spec are still in sync since for V1 we always write schema and