Re: [DISCUSS] Remove realm_id metric tag

Hi, What about a limit on the realm_id cardinality metric as a compromise ? Like we keep the realm_id metric, but by configuration, the user defines a limit (to avoid flooding/DoS). This is just a "temp" workaround: we should request the metric only if the realm is valid, and it should be coupled

Re: AWS S3 KMS support in Polaris

Hi Ashok Thanks for the update. I will take a look as I'm back from several trips :) Regards JB On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 5:10 PM Ashok Krishna wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > This is regarding the addition of KMS support for AWS S3 in Polaris. > Several approaches were proposed in the PR >

Re: [DISCUSS] Storing Table Metadata in the Metastore

> Loading internal properties requires parsing the whole text, which will include Iceberg metadata, even when the metadata is not used by the code accessing internal properties. This concern should definitely be considered in the design -- but it should also be borne out in benchmarks if there is

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove realm_id metric tag

If we really need a safety valve, add a boolean flag like "metrics.realm-id.enabled", default true. Operators who don’t want the dimension can flip it off; everyone else keeps the out-of-the-box visibility that keeps multi-tenant ops sane. This is exactly what PR [1662] proposes, right? The "bre

Re: Incubator Report for June 2025

Hi JB, The report looks good. Thanks! Alex On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 4:49 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote: > > The report LGTM. Thanks for putting it together, JB! > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 10:07 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > I prepared the incubat

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove realm_id metric tag

Hi JB, hi all, My PR already has a safety net similar to what you propose: if the cardinality of realm IDs in HTTP metrics goes above a configurable threshold (100 by default), a warning is printed and no more HTTP metrics will be recorded. Thanks, Alex On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 5:22 PM Dmitri Bou

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Polaris 0.10.0-beta-incubating (rc4)

Hi, +1 (non-binding) 1) Source distribution - Verified signatures - Verified checksums - Verified no binary files present - Verified build: ./gradlew rat test 2) Binary distributions - Verified signatures - Verified checksums - Downloaded, extracted server tgz - Verified ./run.sh

Re: [DISCUSS] Storing Table Metadata in the Metastore

> > An older version of the implementation took this approach, but some months > ago Dennis left comments suggesting that we use an internal property and > the PR was updated Apologies for missing out on earlier reviews on this change. Why do we need the best approach to the first implementation

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove realm_id metric tag

Hi Alex Thanks ! (I will take a look at the PR). Then it looks good to me. Regards JB On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 5:33 PM Alex Dutra wrote: > > Hi JB, hi all, > > My PR already has a safety net similar to what you propose: if the > cardinality of realm IDs in HTTP metrics goes above a configurable

[DISCUSS] ContainerSpecHelper and the upcoming NoSQL persistence (1563)

Hi All, PR [1563] proposes to remove ContainerSpecHelper, however it has been noted to be relevant to the upcoming NoSQL implementation. AFAIK, NoSQL persistence is still on the road map. So, the removal of ContainerSpecHelper will (re-)add work to the NoSQL PRs later. I do not think maintenance

Re: Incubator Report for June 2025

The report LGTM. Thanks for putting it together, JB! Cheers, Dmitri. On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 10:07 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi folks, > > I prepared the incubator report for this month: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/June2025#polaris > > Can you please take a

Incubator Report for June 2025

Hi folks, I prepared the incubator report for this month: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/June2025#polaris Can you please take a look and let me know if I missed something? I will do a new pass on the report by the end of this week, and I will sign off (as mentor). Thanks

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Polaris 0.10.0-beta-incubating (rc4)

+1 (binding) I checked: * in the source distribution ** incubating is in the name/version ** signature and checksum are good ** DISCLAIMER is there ** LICENSE/NOTICE are there and look good (including expected updates) ** The headers look good in the source files, with ASF header and original head

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Polaris 0.10.0-beta-incubating (rc4)

changing vote to +1 (binding) Verified signatures, checksums and helm install (from URL) Cheers, Dmitri. On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 1:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Dmitri > > Can you please verify again and maybe change your vote if it's good ? > > Thanks ! > Regards > JB > > On Sat, May