Hey Prashant,
thanks for working on this!
I'm a bit confused about "non transactional Postgres" - how's PG not
transactional? If so (like one DML per tx), how is consistency
guaranteed, because IIRC the requirements that some people voiced is to
keep the same schema as the current Eclipselink
Hi folks,
Thanks everyone for joining the Apache Polaris Community Sync
yesterday. As usual, amazing discussion, and a very very packed
agenda. Sorry for the topics we postponed to the next Community
Meeting.
Here's the record:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O2EO7ekFUnfpk2OY7yzP3WybNQ-hG5Zv/vie
0.10.0-beta works for me
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 9:47 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi Yufei,
>
> Thanks for your reply!
>
> I propose to use 0.10.0-beta (as consensus).
>
> I'm moving forward on the PR about LICENSE/NOTICE and checking the
> artifacts. I will create this milestone on GitHub.
Re: "non-transactional", I guess it's more descriptive to refer to this new
implementation as "AtomicOperationJdbcPersistence" if it's confusing to say
"non-transactional"; the key is simply that we don't expose any
"runInTransaction" to the AtomicOperationMetaStoreManager layer.
Regarding Robert'
> I do not see a reason to change public facing Polaris APIs just because
Iceberg's APIs changed/evolved.
Really? If our goal is compatibility with the Iceberg REST spec, wouldn't
Polaris APIs necessarily need to change if the Iceberg ones do?
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 4:14 AM Robert Stupp wrote:
Hi Robert,
Thank you for your response!
To clarify my point about "non-transactional" operations, I meant that most
operations don't require full transactions, with the exception of methods
such as writeEntities. For this specific case, Dennis created a new
implementation of Polaris MetaStore Man
For me as well
On 21.03.25 15:07, Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote:
0.10.0-beta works for me
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 9:47 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
Hi Yufei,
Thanks for your reply!
I propose to use 0.10.0-beta (as consensus).
I'm moving forward on the PR about LICENSE/NOTICE and checking th
Thanks, Prashant, for working on this!
Using JSONB in the WIP JDBC implementation makes sense. For the EclipseLink
implementation, I'd recommend keeping the current schema as-is (without
JSONB) so existing users don’t need to go through a migration.
If users do want to migrate, I’d suggest moving
