Sorry for the late reply, I'm on vacation. Seems, like we missed the 1.10.0 release, so we should aim for the 1.11.0 then.
Renjie Liu's suggestion about mentioning it in the implementation notes seems like a good idea. When I'm back, I will start the vote thread. Thanks, Peter On Fri, Aug 22, 2025, 21:34 Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with removing support for writing row values along with position > deletes from the Java implementation writing to v2 tables. I don't think it > is used anywhere and is no longer allowed in v3. > > For other implementations, I doubt it makes sense to support writing row > values given that they are no longer allowed in v3 and it also no longer > makes sense to read them because nothing creates them in the first place. > > And for the target to remove this support, it doesn't look like there is > anything in the API module so we can remove them after they have been > deprecated for a minor release. Maybe we should try to get this in right > away so we can remove it in 1.11? > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:13 AM Russell Spitzer < > russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ah! That I support. Thanks for Clarifying Peter >> >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 1:08 PM Péter Váry <peter.vary.apa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Let me clarify the proposal: >>> >>> The Position Deletes With Row (PDWR) feature, introduced in the V2 >>> Iceberg specification, has been deprecated in the V3 spec. It remains >>> implemented in the current Java version of the Parquet/Avro/ORC writers and >>> is accessible via the FileAppenderFactory and FileWriterFactory interfaces. >>> The feature is also covered by several unit tests. >>> >>> Although the Java implementation continues to support V2, the *proposal >>> is to drop PDWR support in the Java implementation starting with the >>> Iceberg 2.0.0 release.* >>> >>> To evaluate the impact of removing PDWR, I’ve submitted a pull request: >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13870. >>> >>> You can see that I had to modify the following unit tests: >>> - Test(Avro/ORC/Parquet)DeleteWriters >>> - TestFileWriterFactory - extended by Generic/Spark/Flink >>> - TestAppenderFactory - extended by Generic/Flink >>> - TestWriterMetrics - extended by Spark/Flink >>> - TestGenericSortedPosDeleteWriter >>> - TestRewriteTablePathsAction.testPositionDeleteWithRow >>> - TestPositionDeletesTable >>> >>> Let me know if you think the feature is still used somewhere. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2025. aug. 20., >>> Sze, 4:24): >>> >>>> I think it would make sense to mention that it's deprecated in >>>> implementation notes. Some libraries such as iceberg-rust are currently >>>> working on v2 support, and if we have that statement in spec we could >>>> ignore the support of row data in position deletes. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 12:53 AM Russell Spitzer < >>>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry! I meant to say also that I am fully in favor of completely >>>>> removing/deprecating this. But since we deprecated Position Deletes in V3 >>>>> we probably >>>>> already have this covered? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 11:06 AM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> PyIceberg doesn't produce it, or uses it at the planning phase. >>>>>> Curious if there is any library that actually uses this. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do agree with Russell, and maybe deprecating this at the spec >>>>>> level makes more sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> Fokko >>>>>> >>>>>> Op di 19 aug 2025 om 17:54 schreef Russell Spitzer < >>>>>> russell.spit...@gmail.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure we can deprecate the column in a library version >>>>>>> update, but currently it is marked as optional >>>>>>> and I don't think the Apache Java Library even has a way of writing >>>>>>> or reading them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 10:15 AM Péter Váry < >>>>>>> peter.vary.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> During the last community sync (30/07), we discussed the current >>>>>>>> state of the File Format API proposal [1] and found that implementing >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> writers for Positional Deletes where the actual row data is provided >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> complicate things quite a bit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The current Iceberg V2 spec [2] defines two types of position >>>>>>>> delete files: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Files that store only the file name and row position. >>>>>>>> 2. Files that also store the deleted row data. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The 1st type of the position deletes are widely used. The 2nd type >>>>>>>> of deletes is defined in the spec and some tests exist in the Iceberg >>>>>>>> codebase, but we’re not aware of any actual implementation using the >>>>>>>> second >>>>>>>> type (position delete files with row data). Supporting writing V2 >>>>>>>> tables >>>>>>>> via the new File Format API would be simpler if we dropped support for >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> feature. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would like to hear of any uses of these delete files. If we can >>>>>>>> not find use-cases, then *I propose to deprecate position delete >>>>>>>> files with embedded row data starting from Iceberg 2.0.* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] - >>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/ovyh52m2b6c1hrg4fhw3rx92bzr793n2 >>>>>>>> [2] - Position Delete File Spec: >>>>>>>> https://iceberg.apache.org/spec/?h=delete#position-delete-files >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
