Re: [VOTE] REST: Adding scan planning mode to loadTable API

[Prashant Singh]

Thank you so much everyone, the vote seems to have passed !

we got 9 votes (6 binding +1s, 3 non binding +1s with 0 -1s)

I will go ahead and merge :) !

Best,
Prashant Singh

On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 2:49 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 6:13 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>
>> +1 (nb)
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 10:48 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 9:28 AM Péter Váry 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> Steven Wu  ezt írta (időpont: 2026. márc. 10.,
>> K, 5:04):
>> >>>
>> >>> +1 (binding) for the spec
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 8:04 PM roryqi  wrote:
>> 
>>  +1 (non-binding)
>> 
>>  huaxin gao  于2026年3月10日周二 10:07写道：
>>  >
>>  > +1 (non-binding)
>>  >
>>  > On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:44 PM Yufei Gu 
>> wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >> +1
>>  >> Yufei
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:37 AM Prashant Singh <
>> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Thanks for the feedback Ryan, splitted the PR into 2 :
>>  >>> SPEC PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>>  >>> Client Side Impl : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15572
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Best,
>>  >>> Prashant Singh
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ryan Blue 
>> wrote:
>>  
>>   +1 for the spec changes, but I don't think that we should mix
>> implementation and spec changes in the same PR. Could you remove the
>> implementation changes?
>>  
>>   On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM Prashant Singh <
>> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > Hey All,
>>  >
>>  > I propose adding scan-planning-mode to loadTable API, which is
>> an optional value in the loadTable config section, which when present
>> clients MUST use it to decide which mode of scan planning they wanna do,
>> server side (using IRC scan planning API) or client side (client reading
>> the manifest and then figuring out FileScan Tasks).
>>  >
>>  > For details please check :
>>  >  - PR : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>>  >
>>  > Some summary on background discussion :
>>  > We debated a lot offline on what does MUST means to the
>> client, as if does the client has a liberty to fail fast if they have
>> configured something in their client side config which is orthogonal to
>> what server is suggesting and it feels like we had 2 options from the
>> client end, either fail fast or let the server override the client side
>> config, it seemed like server overriding the client side config with the
>> client logging this as a warning is what i have implemented mostly from pov
>> what's done today for other configs.
>>  >  I do think we should think a bit more about how server side
>> overrides go along with the client side configs (I understand this is more
>> client side implementation details than directly related directly to
>> server)  and plan to start a thread discussing this more in depth. I wanted
>> to share a summary of this discussion (which is captured in pr as well
>> [here]) to keep the wider community aware.
>>  >
>>  > Please vote in the next 72 hours:
>>  >
>>  > [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec
>>  > [ ] +0
>>  > [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns
>>  >
>>  > Best,
>>  > Prashant Singh
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] REST: Adding scan planning mode to loadTable API

[Amogh Jahagirdar]

+1

On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 6:13 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:

> +1 (nb)
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 10:48 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner
>  wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 9:28 AM Péter Váry 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Steven Wu  ezt írta (időpont: 2026. márc. 10.,
> K, 5:04):
> >>>
> >>> +1 (binding) for the spec
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 8:04 PM roryqi  wrote:
> 
>  +1 (non-binding)
> 
>  huaxin gao  于2026年3月10日周二 10:07写道：
>  >
>  > +1 (non-binding)
>  >
>  > On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:44 PM Yufei Gu 
> wrote:
>  >>
>  >> +1
>  >> Yufei
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:37 AM Prashant Singh <
> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>> Thanks for the feedback Ryan, splitted the PR into 2 :
>  >>> SPEC PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>  >>> Client Side Impl : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15572
>  >>>
>  >>> Best,
>  >>> Prashant Singh
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ryan Blue 
> wrote:
>  
>   +1 for the spec changes, but I don't think that we should mix
> implementation and spec changes in the same PR. Could you remove the
> implementation changes?
>  
>   On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM Prashant Singh <
> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >
>  > Hey All,
>  >
>  > I propose adding scan-planning-mode to loadTable API, which is
> an optional value in the loadTable config section, which when present
> clients MUST use it to decide which mode of scan planning they wanna do,
> server side (using IRC scan planning API) or client side (client reading
> the manifest and then figuring out FileScan Tasks).
>  >
>  > For details please check :
>  >  - PR : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>  >
>  > Some summary on background discussion :
>  > We debated a lot offline on what does MUST means to the client,
> as if does the client has a liberty to fail fast if they have configured
> something in their client side config which is orthogonal to what server is
> suggesting and it feels like we had 2 options from the client end, either
> fail fast or let the server override the client side config, it seemed like
> server overriding the client side config with the client logging this as a
> warning is what i have implemented mostly from pov what's done today for
> other configs.
>  >  I do think we should think a bit more about how server side
> overrides go along with the client side configs (I understand this is more
> client side implementation details than directly related directly to
> server)  and plan to start a thread discussing this more in depth. I wanted
> to share a summary of this discussion (which is captured in pr as well
> [here]) to keep the wider community aware.
>  >
>  > Please vote in the next 72 hours:
>  >
>  > [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec
>  > [ ] +0
>  > [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns
>  >
>  > Best,
>  > Prashant Singh
>

Re: [VOTE] REST: Adding scan planning mode to loadTable API

[Alexandre Dutra]

+1 (nb)

On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 10:48 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner
 wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 9:28 AM Péter Váry  
> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Steven Wu  ezt írta (időpont: 2026. márc. 10., K, 
>> 5:04):
>>>
>>> +1 (binding) for the spec
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 8:04 PM roryqi  wrote:

 +1 (non-binding)

 huaxin gao  于2026年3月10日周二 10:07写道：
 >
 > +1 (non-binding)
 >
 > On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:44 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:
 >>
 >> +1
 >> Yufei
 >>
 >>
 >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:37 AM Prashant Singh 
 >>  wrote:
 >>>
 >>> Thanks for the feedback Ryan, splitted the PR into 2 :
 >>> SPEC PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
 >>> Client Side Impl : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15572
 >>>
 >>> Best,
 >>> Prashant Singh
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>
 >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ryan Blue  wrote:
 
  +1 for the spec changes, but I don't think that we should mix 
  implementation and spec changes in the same PR. Could you remove the 
  implementation changes?
 
  On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM Prashant Singh 
   wrote:
 >
 > Hey All,
 >
 > I propose adding scan-planning-mode to loadTable API, which is an 
 > optional value in the loadTable config section, which when present 
 > clients MUST use it to decide which mode of scan planning they wanna 
 > do, server side (using IRC scan planning API) or client side (client 
 > reading the manifest and then figuring out FileScan Tasks).
 >
 > For details please check :
 >  - PR : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
 >
 > Some summary on background discussion :
 > We debated a lot offline on what does MUST means to the client, as 
 > if does the client has a liberty to fail fast if they have 
 > configured something in their client side config which is orthogonal 
 > to what server is suggesting and it feels like we had 2 options from 
 > the client end, either fail fast or let the server override the 
 > client side config, it seemed like server overriding the client side 
 > config with the client logging this as a warning is what i have 
 > implemented mostly from pov what's done today for other configs.
 >  I do think we should think a bit more about how server side 
 > overrides go along with the client side configs (I understand this 
 > is more client side implementation details than directly related 
 > directly to server)  and plan to start a thread discussing this more 
 > in depth. I wanted to share a summary of this discussion (which is 
 > captured in pr as well [here]) to keep the wider community aware.
 >
 > Please vote in the next 72 hours:
 >
 > [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec
 > [ ] +0
 > [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns
 >
 > Best,
 > Prashant Singh

Re: [VOTE] REST: Adding scan planning mode to loadTable API

[Eduard Tudenhöfner]

+1

On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 9:28 AM Péter Váry 
wrote:

> +1
>
> Steven Wu  ezt írta (időpont: 2026. márc. 10., K,
> 5:04):
>
>> +1 (binding) for the spec
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 8:04 PM roryqi  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> huaxin gao  于2026年3月10日周二 10:07写道：
>>> >
>>> > +1 (non-binding)
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:44 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> +1
>>> >> Yufei
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:37 AM Prashant Singh <
>>> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks for the feedback Ryan, splitted the PR into 2 :
>>> >>> SPEC PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>>> >>> Client Side Impl : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15572
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best,
>>> >>> Prashant Singh
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ryan Blue  wrote:
>>> 
>>>  +1 for the spec changes, but I don't think that we should mix
>>> implementation and spec changes in the same PR. Could you remove the
>>> implementation changes?
>>> 
>>>  On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM Prashant Singh <
>>> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hey All,
>>> >
>>> > I propose adding scan-planning-mode to loadTable API, which is an
>>> optional value in the loadTable config section, which when present clients
>>> MUST use it to decide which mode of scan planning they wanna do, server
>>> side (using IRC scan planning API) or client side (client reading the
>>> manifest and then figuring out FileScan Tasks).
>>> >
>>> > For details please check :
>>> >  - PR : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>>> >
>>> > Some summary on background discussion :
>>> > We debated a lot offline on what does MUST means to the client, as
>>> if does the client has a liberty to fail fast if they have configured
>>> something in their client side config which is orthogonal to what server is
>>> suggesting and it feels like we had 2 options from the client end, either
>>> fail fast or let the server override the client side config, it seemed like
>>> server overriding the client side config with the client logging this as a
>>> warning is what i have implemented mostly from pov what's done today for
>>> other configs.
>>> >  I do think we should think a bit more about how server side
>>> overrides go along with the client side configs (I understand this is more
>>> client side implementation details than directly related directly to
>>> server)  and plan to start a thread discussing this more in depth. I wanted
>>> to share a summary of this discussion (which is captured in pr as well
>>> [here]) to keep the wider community aware.
>>> >
>>> > Please vote in the next 72 hours:
>>> >
>>> > [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec
>>> > [ ] +0
>>> > [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Prashant Singh
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] REST: Adding scan planning mode to loadTable API

[Péter Váry]

+1

Steven Wu  ezt írta (időpont: 2026. márc. 10., K,
5:04):

> +1 (binding) for the spec
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 8:04 PM roryqi  wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> huaxin gao  于2026年3月10日周二 10:07写道：
>> >
>> > +1 (non-binding)
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:44 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1
>> >> Yufei
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:37 AM Prashant Singh <
>> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for the feedback Ryan, splitted the PR into 2 :
>> >>> SPEC PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>> >>> Client Side Impl : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15572
>> >>>
>> >>> Best,
>> >>> Prashant Singh
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ryan Blue  wrote:
>> 
>>  +1 for the spec changes, but I don't think that we should mix
>> implementation and spec changes in the same PR. Could you remove the
>> implementation changes?
>> 
>>  On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM Prashant Singh <
>> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey All,
>> >
>> > I propose adding scan-planning-mode to loadTable API, which is an
>> optional value in the loadTable config section, which when present clients
>> MUST use it to decide which mode of scan planning they wanna do, server
>> side (using IRC scan planning API) or client side (client reading the
>> manifest and then figuring out FileScan Tasks).
>> >
>> > For details please check :
>> >  - PR : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>> >
>> > Some summary on background discussion :
>> > We debated a lot offline on what does MUST means to the client, as
>> if does the client has a liberty to fail fast if they have configured
>> something in their client side config which is orthogonal to what server is
>> suggesting and it feels like we had 2 options from the client end, either
>> fail fast or let the server override the client side config, it seemed like
>> server overriding the client side config with the client logging this as a
>> warning is what i have implemented mostly from pov what's done today for
>> other configs.
>> >  I do think we should think a bit more about how server side
>> overrides go along with the client side configs (I understand this is more
>> client side implementation details than directly related directly to
>> server)  and plan to start a thread discussing this more in depth. I wanted
>> to share a summary of this discussion (which is captured in pr as well
>> [here]) to keep the wider community aware.
>> >
>> > Please vote in the next 72 hours:
>> >
>> > [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec
>> > [ ] +0
>> > [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Prashant Singh
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] REST: Adding scan planning mode to loadTable API

[Steven Wu]

+1 (binding) for the spec

On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 8:04 PM roryqi  wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> huaxin gao  于2026年3月10日周二 10:07写道：
> >
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:44 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >> Yufei
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:37 AM Prashant Singh 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the feedback Ryan, splitted the PR into 2 :
> >>> SPEC PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
> >>> Client Side Impl : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15572
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Prashant Singh
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ryan Blue  wrote:
> 
>  +1 for the spec changes, but I don't think that we should mix
> implementation and spec changes in the same PR. Could you remove the
> implementation changes?
> 
>  On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM Prashant Singh <
> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey All,
> >
> > I propose adding scan-planning-mode to loadTable API, which is an
> optional value in the loadTable config section, which when present clients
> MUST use it to decide which mode of scan planning they wanna do, server
> side (using IRC scan planning API) or client side (client reading the
> manifest and then figuring out FileScan Tasks).
> >
> > For details please check :
> >  - PR : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
> >
> > Some summary on background discussion :
> > We debated a lot offline on what does MUST means to the client, as
> if does the client has a liberty to fail fast if they have configured
> something in their client side config which is orthogonal to what server is
> suggesting and it feels like we had 2 options from the client end, either
> fail fast or let the server override the client side config, it seemed like
> server overriding the client side config with the client logging this as a
> warning is what i have implemented mostly from pov what's done today for
> other configs.
> >  I do think we should think a bit more about how server side
> overrides go along with the client side configs (I understand this is more
> client side implementation details than directly related directly to
> server)  and plan to start a thread discussing this more in depth. I wanted
> to share a summary of this discussion (which is captured in pr as well
> [here]) to keep the wider community aware.
> >
> > Please vote in the next 72 hours:
> >
> > [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns
> >
> > Best,
> > Prashant Singh
>

Re: [VOTE] REST: Adding scan planning mode to loadTable API

[roryqi]

+1 (non-binding)

huaxin gao  于2026年3月10日周二 10:07写道：
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:44 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:
>>
>> +1
>> Yufei
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:37 AM Prashant Singh  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback Ryan, splitted the PR into 2 :
>>> SPEC PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>>> Client Side Impl : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15572
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Prashant Singh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ryan Blue  wrote:

 +1 for the spec changes, but I don't think that we should mix 
 implementation and spec changes in the same PR. Could you remove the 
 implementation changes?

 On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM Prashant Singh  
 wrote:
>
> Hey All,
>
> I propose adding scan-planning-mode to loadTable API, which is an 
> optional value in the loadTable config section, which when present 
> clients MUST use it to decide which mode of scan planning they wanna do, 
> server side (using IRC scan planning API) or client side (client reading 
> the manifest and then figuring out FileScan Tasks).
>
> For details please check :
>  - PR : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>
> Some summary on background discussion :
> We debated a lot offline on what does MUST means to the client, as if 
> does the client has a liberty to fail fast if they have configured 
> something in their client side config which is orthogonal to what server 
> is suggesting and it feels like we had 2 options from the client end, 
> either fail fast or let the server override the client side config, it 
> seemed like server overriding the client side config with the client 
> logging this as a warning is what i have implemented mostly from pov 
> what's done today for other configs.
>  I do think we should think a bit more about how server side overrides go 
> along with the client side configs (I understand this is more client side 
> implementation details than directly related directly to server)  and 
> plan to start a thread discussing this more in depth. I wanted to share a 
> summary of this discussion (which is captured in pr as well [here]) to 
> keep the wider community aware.
>
> Please vote in the next 72 hours:
>
> [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns
>
> Best,
> Prashant Singh

Re: [VOTE] REST: Adding scan planning mode to loadTable API

[huaxin gao]

+1 (non-binding)

On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:44 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:

> +1
> Yufei
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:37 AM Prashant Singh 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the feedback Ryan, splitted the PR into 2 :
>> SPEC PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>> Client Side Impl : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15572
>>
>> Best,
>> Prashant Singh
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ryan Blue  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for the spec changes, but I don't think that we should mix
>>> implementation and spec changes in the same PR. Could you remove the
>>> implementation changes?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM Prashant Singh 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey All,

 I propose adding *scan-planning-mode *to loadTable API, which is an
 optional value in the loadTable config section, which when present clients
 MUST use it to decide which mode of scan planning they wanna do, server
 side (using IRC scan planning API) or client side (client reading the
 manifest and then figuring out FileScan Tasks).

 For details please check :
  - PR : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867

 Some summary on background discussion :
 We debated a lot offline on what does MUST means to the client, as if
 does the client has a liberty to fail fast if they have configured
 something in their client side config which is orthogonal to what server is
 suggesting and it feels like we had 2 options from the client end, either
 fail fast or let the server override the client side config, it seemed like
 server overriding the client side config with the client logging this as a
 warning is what i have implemented mostly from pov what's done *today*
 for other configs.
  I do think we should think a bit more about how server side overrides
 go along with the client side configs (I understand this is more *client
 side* implementation details than directly related directly to
 server)  and plan to start a thread discussing this more in depth. I wanted
 to share a summary of this discussion (which is captured in pr as well [
 here
 ])
 to keep the wider community aware.

 Please vote in the next 72 hours:

 [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec
 [ ] +0
 [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns

 Best,
 Prashant Singh

>>>

Re: [VOTE] REST: Adding scan planning mode to loadTable API

[Yufei Gu]

+1
Yufei


On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:37 AM Prashant Singh 
wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback Ryan, splitted the PR into 2 :
> SPEC PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
> Client Side Impl : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15572
>
> Best,
> Prashant Singh
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ryan Blue  wrote:
>
>> +1 for the spec changes, but I don't think that we should mix
>> implementation and spec changes in the same PR. Could you remove the
>> implementation changes?
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM Prashant Singh 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey All,
>>>
>>> I propose adding *scan-planning-mode *to loadTable API, which is an
>>> optional value in the loadTable config section, which when present clients
>>> MUST use it to decide which mode of scan planning they wanna do, server
>>> side (using IRC scan planning API) or client side (client reading the
>>> manifest and then figuring out FileScan Tasks).
>>>
>>> For details please check :
>>>  - PR : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>>>
>>> Some summary on background discussion :
>>> We debated a lot offline on what does MUST means to the client, as if
>>> does the client has a liberty to fail fast if they have configured
>>> something in their client side config which is orthogonal to what server is
>>> suggesting and it feels like we had 2 options from the client end, either
>>> fail fast or let the server override the client side config, it seemed like
>>> server overriding the client side config with the client logging this as a
>>> warning is what i have implemented mostly from pov what's done *today*
>>> for other configs.
>>>  I do think we should think a bit more about how server side overrides
>>> go along with the client side configs (I understand this is more *client
>>> side* implementation details than directly related directly to server)
>>> and plan to start a thread discussing this more in depth. I wanted to share
>>> a summary of this discussion (which is captured in pr as well [here
>>> ])
>>> to keep the wider community aware.
>>>
>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec
>>> [ ] +0
>>> [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Prashant Singh
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] REST: Adding scan planning mode to loadTable API

[Prashant Singh]

Thanks for the feedback Ryan, splitted the PR into 2 :
SPEC PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
Client Side Impl : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15572

Best,
Prashant Singh



On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ryan Blue  wrote:

> +1 for the spec changes, but I don't think that we should mix
> implementation and spec changes in the same PR. Could you remove the
> implementation changes?
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM Prashant Singh 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey All,
>>
>> I propose adding *scan-planning-mode *to loadTable API, which is an
>> optional value in the loadTable config section, which when present clients
>> MUST use it to decide which mode of scan planning they wanna do, server
>> side (using IRC scan planning API) or client side (client reading the
>> manifest and then figuring out FileScan Tasks).
>>
>> For details please check :
>>  - PR : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>>
>> Some summary on background discussion :
>> We debated a lot offline on what does MUST means to the client, as if
>> does the client has a liberty to fail fast if they have configured
>> something in their client side config which is orthogonal to what server is
>> suggesting and it feels like we had 2 options from the client end, either
>> fail fast or let the server override the client side config, it seemed like
>> server overriding the client side config with the client logging this as a
>> warning is what i have implemented mostly from pov what's done *today*
>> for other configs.
>>  I do think we should think a bit more about how server side overrides go
>> along with the client side configs (I understand this is more *client
>> side* implementation details than directly related directly to server)
>> and plan to start a thread discussing this more in depth. I wanted to share
>> a summary of this discussion (which is captured in pr as well [here
>> ])
>> to keep the wider community aware.
>>
>> Please vote in the next 72 hours:
>>
>> [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns
>>
>> Best,
>> Prashant Singh
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] REST: Adding scan planning mode to loadTable API

[Ryan Blue]

+1 for the spec changes, but I don't think that we should mix
implementation and spec changes in the same PR. Could you remove the
implementation changes?

On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM Prashant Singh 
wrote:

> Hey All,
>
> I propose adding *scan-planning-mode *to loadTable API, which is an
> optional value in the loadTable config section, which when present clients
> MUST use it to decide which mode of scan planning they wanna do, server
> side (using IRC scan planning API) or client side (client reading the
> manifest and then figuring out FileScan Tasks).
>
> For details please check :
>  - PR : https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14867
>
> Some summary on background discussion :
> We debated a lot offline on what does MUST means to the client, as if does
> the client has a liberty to fail fast if they have configured something in
> their client side config which is orthogonal to what server is suggesting
> and it feels like we had 2 options from the client end, either fail fast or
> let the server override the client side config, it seemed like server
> overriding the client side config with the client logging this as a warning
> is what i have implemented mostly from pov what's done *today* for other
> configs.
>  I do think we should think a bit more about how server side overrides go
> along with the client side configs (I understand this is more *client
> side* implementation details than directly related directly to server)
> and plan to start a thread discussing this more in depth. I wanted to share
> a summary of this discussion (which is captured in pr as well [here
> ])
> to keep the wider community aware.
>
> Please vote in the next 72 hours:
>
> [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns
>
> Best,
> Prashant Singh
>