patterns.
Please share your thoughts on this.
Best regards,
Prashant Singh
[1]
https://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/main/polaris-core/src/main/java/org/apache/polaris/core/persistence/AtomicOperationMetaStoreManager.java
[2]
https://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/main/polaris-core/src/main/
Thank you so much for the benchmarks !
+1, having benchmark results committed, it will help catch any degradation
/ correctness issue that can creep in !
equivalent to golden files of tpc-ds / tpc-h in spark repo.
Best,
Prashant Sungh
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:53 AM Russell Spitzer
wrote:
> I t
Congratulations folks, well deserved !
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 5:02 PM yun zou wrote:
> Congratulations!
>
> Best Regards,
> Yun
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 4:28 PM Michael Collado
> wrote:
>
> > Wow! Awesome news. Congrats folks!
> >
&
et me know what your thoughts are ?
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 1:16 AM Eric Maynard
wrote:
> I'm generally a +1 on using JSONB within Postgres.
>
> However I am in agreement with Dennis that we should avoid his item (2)
> above. If the application will need to
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pSqxf5A59J062j9VFF5rcCpbW9vdTbBKTmjps80D-B0/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.fn6jmpw6phpn
[2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/5888
[3] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1285
Best,
Prashant Singh
+1
1. Verified checksums, signature, artifacts
2. did manual testing with admin and server, works well !
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 7:52 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> I checked:
> - checksum and signature are good on the source distributio
options.
Best regards,
Prashant Singh
Hi all,
I’d like to get your thoughts on deprecating EclipseLink and making JDBC
the default for our persistence layer.
Our current EclipseLink setup mandates execution within a transaction,
which has introduced several issues — notably, an improper implementation
of CAS (compare-and-swap) semant
a work !
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 8:56 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov
wrote:
> Hi Prashant,
>
> Sorry for the delayed reply and apologies if I missed some relevant
> discussion.
>
> As I understand the catalog could remove snapshots that come in-between
> previous and
ators to choose between options
> 1,
> > > 2, 3
> > > > > > > according to their specific deployment concerns.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This means that the primary key has to include the realm ID,
> > > because
&g
Hey folks,
I am presently working on implementing non transactional postgres
implementation using jdbc. in the course of that i noticed in the entity
table that the column type of the properties / internal properties column
is TEXT and not JSONB, I dug a bit into the history of this, seems like we
+1 (non-binding)
Best,
Prashant
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 7:01 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov
wrote:
> +1 LGTM.
>
> Cheers,
> Dmitri.
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 12:30 AM Dennis Huo wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > We've had some productive discussion in various places on the mailing
> list,
> > in the g
routed to 1 realm still
and then we can diff instance running diff realms ?
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 9:29 AM Yufei Gu wrote:
> To clarify, Polaris *does* support multi-tenancy. What’s currently limited
> with Option 1 is *account-level* multi-tenancy specifically
olaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/metastores/>.
Cheers,
Prashant Singh
295 | 295 |
0 | 47 | 11 | 50 |
88
Unfortunately our mail client does not allow adding zip attachments,
please let me know if you need detailed gatling reports, happy to send
it over the slack !
Best,
Prashant Singh
On
is ANALYST i will
never get back view but my IS_MEMBER() is true so i think i should be able
to read the view
this helps expressing this more verbose and get away from grants
This is infact a feature in UNity
[1] https://docs.databricks.com/aws/en/views/dynamic
Happy to discuss more !
Best,
P
> Let's work together on a proper design.
For sure ! will be reaching out soon for this !
Best,
Prashant Singh
Thank you so much
for driving this !
Please Let me know your thoughts.
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:45 PM Ajantha Bhat wrote:
> Hi Prashant,
>
> It seems to me that what you are trying to do is to store scalar UDF in the
> polaris catalog.
> Iceberg is t
world
to unify spark's current_user() to
is_prinicpal() in polaris.
I hope this answers your concern. I am totally open to any recommendation
and work rough edges, let's solve this problem, together as a community !
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 9:06 AM Robert Stupp wrote:
+1 to the suggestion !
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 7:39 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov
wrote:
> Great suggestions, Robert! Thanks for writing them down.
>
> Cheers,
> Dmitri.
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:34 AM Robert Stupp wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Looking a bit ahead with respect to releases and (semi
sql-reference/functions-context>
Databricks Unity Catalog offers a similar mechanism called *dynamic views*:
https://docs.databricks.com/aws/en/views/dynamic
*Next steps*
If the community is interested, we can discuss API surface, engine
implications, and a roadmap for merging.
Eager to hear your feedback!
Best,
Prashant Singh
n anything in Polaris all it
matter when the view was asked
what was the caller's identity and hence get the appropriate view
definition.
A trusted engine should just focus on executing the view and not care about
identity resolution.
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:40 AM
rather than just ACL (which are conjunctions) for ex if we just complicate
the view def with more predicated for ex disjunction
select * from ns1.layer1_table where (condition1) OR
(is_principal_role('ANALYST'))
I would love to get your further feedback, considering the above.
Best,
Prashant
an engine only when
things like identity is involved, we need to do this at catalog level to
have uniform enforcement.
Please let me know your further thoughts.
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 12:21 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi Prashant
>
> Thanks for the propos
and forgot to reply here :)
> > > >
> > > > Yes agree to deprecate eclipselink it makes sense to me and promote
> > > > "JDBC" instead.
> > > >
> > > > That said, as said in the PR, I think we should keep the eclipselink
> >
The refactor makes sense to me as well, Thanks Yufei !
persistence/
├── eclipselink/
├── relational-jdbc/
├── mongodb/
└── .../
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 1:23 AM Pierre Laporte wrote:
> Could you add a README file at the root of the `persistence/` directory so
> that
+1, Agree with running this only on main
On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 11:22 AM Eric Maynard
wrote:
> +1, great idea. This process change will reduce noise in the repo as we add
> more releases, and it also aligns more closely with the idea of a release
> as a stable snapshot of the code at some point
led, I cherry-picked the feature to 1.0, it's a clean cherry-pick !
I believe it will strongly help in Apache Polaris adoption, and
sincerely thank everyone who participated !
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 9:13 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Posting here for
c they can very
well be called context variables instead.
Re: a few common, constant-foldable expressions in FGAC policies, and go
from there.
Precisely, let me share the doc (by next week) which we have been
interating on internally for a while now, I hope all this makes sense once
shared.
Best,
Prashan
this change !
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 10:48 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi Rahil
>
> It's interesting, thanks for that. As a first step, the approach
> corresponds to the one used for Delta.
>
> Long term, I would love to see support on other tab
hat I am working on a proposal doc for incorporating these thoughts
for Polaris, I will share with the community *soon* and would love to get
all of your feedback !
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 2:48 PM Eric Maynard
wrote:
> It seems to me that the *easiest* to start with wo
+1 on skipping 0.10 since we are very close to closing all 1.0 blockers.
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 3:57 PM Yufei Gu wrote:
> +1 on skipping 0.10 and releasing 1.0 directly given the current status. We
> don't have to spend more time on 0.10.0-beta, and 0.10.0
Awesome news !
Thank you Yufei for driving the release :) !
Thanks a ton to the Polaris community for your participation and
contribution; it wouldn't have been possible without you !
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 8:59 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov
wrote:
> Great news! Th
Apologies for the broken link to the proposal : here you go [OSS] Secure
Views for dynamic policy enforcement.
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AJicez7xPhzwKXenGZ19h0hngxrwAg3rSajDV1v0x-s/edit?usp=sharing>
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 11:06 AM Prashant Singh
wrote:
rg views and expects
further enhancements via Iceberg Expressions expansion and Iceberg UDF's.*
Best,
Prashant Singh & Russell Spitzer
+1 (non-binding)
* Checksums
* Signatures
* tested Postgres
Thank you Yufei,
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 3:32 PM Russell Spitzer
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> -Verified Checksums and Sigs
> -Verified all build and test again
> -Rechecked the license fixes we did i
+1 (non binding)
I verified the following:
- Source tarball (shasum and GPG signature)
- Build and test
- Verified server binary distribution
- basic sanity testing with JDBC persistence layer
Thank you Yufei !
Bests,
Prashant
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 9:47 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> +1 (b
+1 to 1.0.1 with just helm fix !
On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 7:07 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov
wrote:
> A 1.0.1 (patch) release from the 1.0.x branch with just helm fixes SGTM.
>
> Cheers,
> Dmitri.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 9:24 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> wrote:
>
> > That's a good call.
> >
> > My i
38 matches
Mail list logo
