Re: ​[discuss] Allow 200 responses for HEAD requests in REST API

I agree with Yufei's observation. Changing the return code in the spec from 204 to 200 will just cause additional downstream work that doesn't seem worth it. Returning 204 makes the API also very explicit in telling that the request succeeded but that there's no content in the response that the cli

Re: [VOTE] Drop Hive runtime

+1 On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 9:01 PM rdb...@gmail.com wrote: > The PR looks good to me. +1 > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 6:00 PM Manu Zhang > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for sharing your ideas in the discussion of Hive support[1]. We >> have a consensus to drop Hive runtime and upgrade Hive me

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.8.1rc1

+1 (binding) but I've also had the same tests fail that Honah mentioned earlier (which are due to deprecated dependencies) On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 3:52 AM Sung Yun wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Checked signatures, checksums and validated license headers. > > Ran the coverage tests using python3.1

Re: [VOTE] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields as Subsection of Appendix F in Spec

+1 On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 9:46 AM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > +1 > > Op wo 22 jan 2025 om 08:21 schreef Péter Váry >: > >> +1 >> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025, 06:06 huaxin gao wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 6:04 PM Manu Zhang >>> wrote: >>> +1 (non-binding)

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate IRC snapshot-id Field of SetStatisticsUpdate

+1 On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 5:34 PM Marc Cenac wrote: > +1 non-binding > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:19 AM Sung Yun wrote: > >> +1 non-binding >> >> Thanks for driving this Christian! >> >> On 2025/01/21 12:39:26 Russell Spitzer wrote: >> > +1 >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 4:34 AM Alex Dutra

Re: [DISCUSS, VOTE] OpenAPI Metadata Update for EnableRowLineage

+1 On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 4:49 AM Honah J. wrote: > +1, thanks Russell! > > Best regards, > Honah > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 6:49 PM Renjie Liu > wrote: > >> +1, thanks Russell for driving this! >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 8:12 AM Russell Spitzer < >> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>

Re: [VOTE] Add initial/write defaults to REST spec

+1 On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 9:35 AM Christian Thiel wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 at 07:34, Fokko Driesprong wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Op za 25 jan 2025 om 00:55 schreef Honah J. : >> >>> +1, thanks for driving this! >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Honah >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 rc0

+1 (verified sigs/checksums/license/ran tests locally) On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 7:00 AM Yuya Ebihara wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Checked green CI on Trino https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/24814 > > BR, > Yuya > > On 2025/01/28 04:52:39 Cheng Pan wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > Pass int

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding RemoveSchemasUpdate update type to REST spec

I agree that it makes sense to add this, so I'm +1 on this. On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 3:38 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Gabor > > Sorry for the late reply. > > It makes sense to me. Thanks ! > > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:32 AM Gabor Kaszab > wrote: > > > > Hi Iceberg Comm

Re: [Discuss][Vote] Spec Change - Add optional field added-rows to Snapshot for Row Lineage

+1 On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 7:53 AM huaxin gao wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 10:51 PM Gang Wu wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 2:30 PM Péter Váry >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Steven Wu ezt írta (időpont: 2025. jan. 16., Cs, >>> 0:46): >>> +

Re: [VOTE] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields as Appendix in Spec

+1 On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 1:20 AM rdb...@gmail.com wrote: > The content looks correct to me, but because this states a requirement > ("Metrics must be accurate if written") I would rather move this content > into the section on the snapshot summary instead of an appendix. > > On Tue, Jan 14, 20

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.8.0 RC0

+1 (binding) Verified sigs/checksums/build/tests with JDK17 I also saw the same *TestS3FileIO* failures that Kevin reported earlier (which passed on a subsequent run) and I do agree with Ryan that we may want to move Docker-specific tests to the *integrationTest* configuration. I opened #12236

[VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated

Hey everyone, I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the documentation around how *NamespaceNotEmptyException* is treated when a non-empty namespace is deleted. In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a bad request

Re: [VOTE] Minor simplifications for Geo Spec

+1 On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 2:30 AM Gang Wu wrote: > 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

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: [DISCUSS] Row lineage required for v3

I'm convinced that always having lineage metadata is the right call, so I'm +1 here. On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:15 PM Ryan Blue wrote: > Now, if we make it required for V3 tables, what if users don’t need the > row lineage feature. There is a bit overhead (although low) for row > lineage. E.g.,

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

t; >>>> +1. Thanks Eduard! >>>> >>>> Yufei >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:46 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < >>>> etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have updated the spec

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

>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (non binding) >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner >>>> wro

Re: [VOTE][Go] Release Apache Iceberg Go v0.2.0 RC1

+1 (binding) * ran the verification script * ran a few local tests against a REST catalog Thanks everyone On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 7:48 PM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks for running this release Matt, and for adding the additional tests! > > Checked the V1/V2 metadata/manifes

Re: [VOTE] Row lineage required for v3

+1 On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 8:07 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 (non binding) > > Regards > JB > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 8:42 PM Daniel Weeks wrote: > > > > Hey Everyone, > > > > I'd like to raise the proposal to make row-lineage required by default > to a vote. > > > > There was general s

Re: [VOTE] Small spec change for default values

+1 On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 7:31 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 (non binding) > > Regards > JB > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 11:20 PM Ryan Blue wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I’d like to vote on the spec changes in PR 12841. This is a small change > that makes handling default values for

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.9.1rc1

+1 (binding) checked license and unit/integration tests. I've had a few failing tests related to ray. tests/integration/test_reads.py::test_ray_nan_rewritten[session_catalog_hive] FAILED tests/integration/test_reads.py::test_ray_nan_rewritten[session_catalog] FAILED tests/integration/test_read

Re: [VOTE] Add encryption keys to table metadata

+1 (binding) On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 9:29 PM Ryan Blue wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I’d like to propose merging PR 12162 > into the table spec > for v3. The changes are a minimal set of additions needed to support table > encryption schemes, incl

Re: [DISCUSS] Introducing Iceberg Features ?

I fully agree with what Fokko said and I'm concerned that this adds a lot of new complexity and also leads to engines only supporting a minimal set of features for a given Spec version, which makes it even harder for users to know what subset of features a V3 compliant engine actually supports. Ed

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.9.0 RC0

I think rather than having to update the LICENSE/NOTICE files on every version bump (which might be forgotten and requires manual work) maybe we should do this once during release preparation. On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:47 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > -1 (non binding) > > I checked: > - sign

Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistent NoSuchNamespaceException handling in REST Catalog API specification

Thanks for pointing this out Pascha and I can try and add some historical context to this. I believe the reason why this is currently done this way in the *OpenAPI* spec and in the *ErrorHandler* is because this is the behavior that has been defined in the Catalog

Re: [DISCUSS] Table Identifiers in Iceberg View Spec

Thanks Walaa for tackling this problem. I've added a few comments to get a better understanding of how this will look like in the actual implementation. Eduard On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 7:09 PM Walaa Eldin Moustafa wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > Starting this thread to resume our discussion on how to

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.9.0 RC2

+1 (binding) * checked signatures / checksum * ran tests using JDK 17 * ran Spark quickstart examples and a few manual tests Thanks for running the release Ajantha. Eduard On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 3:22 PM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > +1 (binding) > > - Checked the signatures, checksum and license

Re: [DISCUSS] Fix CVE-2025-30065 on 1.8.x / 1.7.x / 1.6.x?

So it sounds like we may want to do 1.8.2 with the updated Parquet version as that should be very low risk. Does anyone want to volunteer and be the release manager for 1.8.2? On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 5:29 PM Ryan Blue wrote: > I agree with Fokko. It's a good idea to get a release out soon that h

[DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.8.1 release

Hey everyone, we're currently tracking all issues that should go into 1.8.1 in the 1.8.1 milestone . So far, all the issues that were previously added have been backported to 1.8.x. I'm volunteering to be the release manager for 1.8.1 and the questi

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.8.1 release

2025 at 11:24 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Eduard > > Thanks for volunteering for the 1.8.1 release. It makes sense to me. > I'm working on some Flink related updates, but for 1.9.0. > I will do a pass on GitHub Issues. > > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Feb 19,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.8.1 RC1

Thanks everyone for participating. The vote result is: +1: 6 (binding), 8 (non-binding) +0: 0 -1: 0 Therefore, the release candidate is passed. On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:53 PM Steve Zhang wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > - Checked signature/SHA512 > - Ran RAT license check > - Ran tests on JDK1

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Iceberg release 1.8.1

I'm pleased to announce the release of Apache Iceberg 1.8.1! Apache Iceberg is an open table format for huge analytic datasets. Iceberg delivers high query performance for tables with tens of petabytes of data, along with atomic commits, concurrent writes, and SQL-compatible table evolution. This

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.9.0rc3

+1 (binding) checked signatures/checksums/license and ran tests via "make test-coverage". Thanks everyone On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 3:10 PM Sung Yun wrote: > Hi Drew, thank you very much for running the release! > > +1 non-binding: > > I've verified the signatures, the checksums and the licensing

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 RC2

+1 (binding) verified sigs/checksums/tests On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 7:48 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 (non binding) > > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 7:41 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I propose that we release the following RC as the official Ap

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 RC2

t;> I've updated the PR >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/pull/1581/>, but then forgot >>> about it. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Fokko >>> >>> Op wo 12 mrt 2025 om 11:35 schreef Eduard Tudenhöfner < >>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Iceberg release 1.8.0

This is most likely caused by the additional checks that were added in https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11756. On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 4:16 PM Gabor Kaszab wrote: > Hi, > > I think it's because of this patch: > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/commit/a2b8008da7bc26e03248a3560d1cc7e849

Re: [VOTE] Add overwriteRequested to RegisterTableRequest in REST spec

+1 On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 12:57 AM Szehon Ho wrote: > +1 > > Thanks Steve! > Szehon > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 1:23 PM Yufei Gu wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> Yufei >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 1:20 PM huaxin gao >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 11:51 AM Anu

Re: [VOTE] Java implementation notes around current-snapshot-id

+1 On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 7:31 AM Steven Wu wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:13 PM Péter Váry > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025, 04:16 Steve Zhang >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (nb) >>> Thanks, >>> Steve Zhang >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 24, 2025, at 6:32 PM, Renjie Liu wrote: >>> >>> +

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 rc0

I think we should still do 1.7.2 and not leave it in a broken state. On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 7:56 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Hussein > > We were focusing on 1.8.x. > > Do you still need 1.7.2 or 1.8.0/1.8.1 is good enough for you ? > > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:23 PM H

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.8.1 RC0

@Yuya you're absolutely right and thanks for reporting this. This was a mistake on my part that I didn't catch. I've created https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12351 to fix this. I'm cancelling this RC and will create RC1 once that PR and the licensing stuff has been fixed. On Thu, Feb 20,

Re: [DISCUSS] Change iceberg-cpp CI settings to only require approval for new contributors

+1 On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:39 AM Renjie Liu wrote: > Thanks Gang for this proposal, +1 for this change. > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 4:50 PM Xuanwo wrote: > >> Here is my +1 non-binding. >> >> I'm watching on this repo actively and will make sure the CI won't be >> abused. >> >> On Mon, Mar 3

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

+1 (binding) On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:14 AM Gang Wu wrote: > The clarification is simple and clear from the writer's perspective. > > CMIW, the implication is that reader should drop bbox with any NaN value > regardless of the coordinate axis (in case of a writer bug). > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at

Re: [VOTE] Merge details about GZip metadata files to the spec.

+1 (binding) On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 3:45 AM Gang Wu wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 3:27 AM Kevin Liu wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Thanks for starting a vote. >> >> There's extra context in the PR description. As a summary, >> `gz.metadata.json` is the current namin

Re: [VOTE] Add encryption key updates to REST spec

+1 (binding) On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 5:23 PM Ryan Blue wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I’d like to raise a vote for committing PR 12987 > that adds table updates > for encryption keys, AddEncryptionKey and RemoveEncryptionKey. These are > needed to maintai

Re: [VOTE] Clarify writer requirements in the spec to prevent orphan DVs

+1 (binding) On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 5:52 PM Anton Okolnychyi wrote: > Hi all, > > I propose the following update to the spec to clarify that writers must > remove any deletion vector that applies to a data file when that data file > is removed from the metadata, as previously brought up by Stev

Re: [VOTE] Adopt the v3 spec changes

+1 (binding) On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 8:14 AM Gidon Gershinsky wrote: > +1 (non-binding). > Glad to see this big step forward. > > Cheers, Gidon > > > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 9:00 AM Ajantha Bhat > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Excited to see Iceberg V3 coming together! >> >> - Ajantha >> >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg Rust 0.5.0 RC2

+1 (binding) I think it would be beneficial if the Rust Release docs would have something similar to https://iceberg.apache.org/how-to-release/#how-to-verify-a-release on how to verify an RC. Thanks everyone! On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 9:54 AM Renjie Liu wrote: > +1 binding > > [x] Download links

Re: [VOTE][Go] Release Apache Iceberg Go v0.3.0 RC0

+1 (binding) Thanks everyone! On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 12:19 AM Leon Lin wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thank you Matt for running the release! > > On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 10:32 AM Kevin Liu wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> [x] Download links are valid. >> [x] Checksums and signatures. >> [x]

Re: [VOTE] [REST SPEC] Add row lineage fields.

+1 (binding) On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 1:19 AM Steven Wu wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 3:39 PM Prashant Singh > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> I propose an update to the Rest Spec to include the Row lineage fields. >> As these need to be passed from server to client for reads, as it i

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Merge details about GZip metadata files to the spec.

t;>>> +1 (binding) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Szehon >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 9:19 AM Russell Spitzer < >>>>>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrot

Re: [DISCUSS] Restructuring Docs side navigation

I do agree that we need to restructure the site to make things less cluttered and easier to find. Thanks Manu/Peter for working on this. It would be great to have a few more reviewers that can help out here and add their opinions about the restructure. Thanks Eduard On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 3:26 AM

[DISCUSS] v4 - Improved column statistics

Hey everyone, I'm starting a thread to connect folks interested in improving the existing way of collecting column-level statistics (often referred to as *metrics* in the code). I've already started a proposal, which can be found at https://s.apache.org/iceberg-column-stats. *Motivation* Column

Re: [DISCUSS] v4 - Improved column statistics

oEfo/edit?usp=sharing> . Thanks everyone, Eduard On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 6:51 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I've just added an event to the dev calendar for July 15 at 9am (PT) to > discuss the column stats proposal. > > > Eduard > > On

Re: [DISCUSS] v4 - Improved column statistics

oom filters in metadata which could be used for > filtering out files, HLL scratches etc > >>>>> > >>>>> +1 for the change > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025, 08:12 Szehon Ho > wrote: > >>>>>> >

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove usage of allowEmptyValue

I'm +1 on removing it. On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 7:03 PM Elphas Toringepi wrote: > Hi Team, > > I’d like to start a discussion about removing the use of allowEmptyValue > in the REST Catalog API, in light of OAI/OpenAPI-Specification#1632. > > The use of allowEmptyValue is not recommended, and it

Re: Apply spotless for scala code

I've reviewed the changes and they LGTM. Since we can fully control the max line length for the Scala code, I would probably update it from 100 to 120 or 140 to get more stuff on a single line. What do people think about adjusting the max line length? On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:51 PM Liu Xianyan

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Iceberg release 1.9.2

Yes, the latest release should show up there, which I've just published. Thanks everyone On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 3:26 PM Robin Moffatt wrote: > Thanks for driving the release! > > A quick question - should it show up on > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/releases ? Currently it's showing 1.9.1

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Welcome Prashant Singh as a new Apache Iceberg Committer

Congrats Prashant, very well deserved! On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 5:43 AM Renjie Liu wrote: > Congrats, Prashant! > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 11:21 AM Prashant Singh > wrote: > >> Thank you everyone, >> >> I'm truly grateful to be part of the Apache Iceberg community and excited >> to continue con

Re: [DISCUSS] v4 - Improved column statistics

>1. The current proposal only leaves 1+200 ids for other columns >than stats. If in the future, we find some other feature which would >require a manifest file column for every data column in the table, then we >would need to change the spec. > > For this I think we could start

Re: [DISCUSS] Iceberg Summit NA 2026 and Iceberg Summit EU 2026 ?

+1 to having an EU summit On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 9:57 AM Claude Warren, Jr wrote: > +1 > > I would be inclined to attend an EU summit but not a NA one. > > I was chair of the ASF Community over Code EU 2024 and am willing to help > organize, though I do not have time to act as chair. > > Claud

Re: [VOTE] Update the table statistics (puffin stats) spec

I agree that this should have been a long in the spec, so +1 to fixing the spec. I checked and Trino also implements this as a long. On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 12:39 PM Ajantha Bhat wrote: > Hi everyone, > One of the users has raised a PR to update the table statistics (puffin > stats) spec. > http

Re: Iceberg 1.10.0 release update - July 1, 2025

I believe we also wanted to get in at least the read path for UnknownType. Fokko has a WIP PR for that. On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 6:13 PM Steven Wu wrote: > 3. Spark: fix data frame join based on different versions of the same > table that may lead to

<    1   2