+1 from my end as well. For added-rows, I noticed that #14048 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/140408> makes it required, while the code for the SnapshotParser allows it to be omitted <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/720ef99720a1c59e4670db983c951243dffc4f3e/core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/SnapshotParser.java#L174-L175>. But I don't think we want to check for the table version there.
- Checked signatures and checksums - Ran license checks - Did some tests against PyIceberg Kind regards, Fokko Op do 11 sep 2025 om 09:12 schreef Christian Thiel < christian.t.b...@gmail.com>: > If we bring back `added-rows`, I am also +1 (non-binding) for this release. > > On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 22:43, Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> * Validated signature and checksum >> * Ran license checks >> * Verified that the convenience binary works in Java 11 >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 2:20 PM Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I think we should continue to use `added-rows` as well. We can update >>> the spec to explain that it should be the number of rows that will be >>> assigned IDs. It would be nice to have a slightly better name, but I don't >>> think it is worth the breaking change. >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 1:22 PM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks, Russel! >>>> >>>> Since we also have 1.8 and 1.9 using the `added-rows` field, we >>>> probably just want to bring back the same field `added-rows` as it is. In >>>> the spec, we can clarify that it is ONLY used for incrementing the >>>> `next-row-id` in the table metadata. It shouldn't be used as the counter >>>> for the actual number of added rows, as the number can include added rows >>>> and some existing rows. >>>> >>>> Maybe in V4, we can consider changing it to `assigned-rows` to reflect >>>> its true purpose and the spec description. >>>> >>>> In summary, we can bring back `added-rows` as a snapshot field in the >>>> spec. There won't be any behavior change in 1.10 compared to 1.8 or 1.9. We >>>> can proceed with the 1.10.0 release. Any concerns? >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 12:46 PM Russell Spitzer < >>>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> As long as we don't change the name we are good for 1.10, if we want >>>>> to change the name we will need to patch that first imho. I think we just >>>>> need to doc that "added-rows" is just directly related to row-lineage in >>>>> the spec and note that it needs to be at minimum the number of added-rows >>>>> in the snapshot but can be larger with our default recommendation being to >>>>> just add all of the added and existing rows in all added manifest files. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 12:37 PM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Adding the information back seems to be the right thing to do here. >>>>>> We can start a separate thread on how to move forward properly, as it is >>>>>> probably more complicated than just adding the field back in the spec. >>>>>> E.g., we may want to use a different field name like `assigned-rows` to >>>>>> reflect the spec language, as it includes both added rows and existing >>>>>> rows >>>>>> in the *new/added* manifest files in the snapshot. Snapshot JSON >>>>>> parser can read both old `added-rows` and new `assigned-rows` fields for >>>>>> backward compatibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> With the direction of adding the field back in the spec, I feel this >>>>>> issue shouldn't be a blocker for 1.10.0 release. Any concerns? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 10:16 AM Christian Thiel < >>>>>> christian.t.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Quick summary of the discussion in the Catalog Sync today: >>>>>>> We had a broad consensus that removing the "added-rows" field was a >>>>>>> mistake. Especially for the REST API, it is required for correct >>>>>>> behaviour, >>>>>>> and it would be unfortunate to deviate the REST Object from the spec >>>>>>> object >>>>>>> too much. As a result, it makes sense to revert the change in >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12781 and add "added-rows" >>>>>>> back as a field to the Snapshot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There has been discussion around whether this field should be >>>>>>> optional or not. If there are currently no V3 Tables out there that >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> have this field, it would probably be best to add it as required. >>>>>>> If anyone is aware of a tool creating v3 tables already without this >>>>>>> field, please let us know here. Iceberg Java does write the "added-rows" >>>>>>> field to this date, even though its temporarily missing from the spec ;) >>>>>>> Tables created with the java sdk, are thus compatible with the >>>>>>> planned change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 16:26, Russell Spitzer < >>>>>>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think ... we would just add added-rows back into the snapshot to >>>>>>>> fix this then? Otherwise we would have to require catalogs to compute >>>>>>>> added rows by reading the manifestList. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think we forgot there could be a snapshot that would be added to >>>>>>>> the base metadata via a REST serialization >>>>>>>> and not directly programmatically from other parts of the code >>>>>>>> base. The change >>>>>>>> was initially made because the "calculation" for this property was >>>>>>>> being done in the >>>>>>>> snapshot producer anyway so we no longer needed the value to be >>>>>>>> passed >>>>>>>> through some other means. The code path in SnapshotParser was >>>>>>>> effectively being bypassed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 6:23 AM Christian Thiel < >>>>>>>> christian.t.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all, I think I have found a blocker for this RC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12781 we removed >>>>>>>>> the "added-rows" fields from snapshots. However in Java, we have not >>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>> this change. >>>>>>>>> The field is still serialized, which is also tested in ` >>>>>>>>> testJsonConversionWithRowLineage`. This is the first thing we >>>>>>>>> should fix. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Secondly, removing the field from the serialization would break >>>>>>>>> the REST Spec for v3 tables. The Catalog needs to know how many rows >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> been added to update the `next-row-id` of the TableMetadata without >>>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>>> the Manifest Lists. We have similar information available in the >>>>>>>>> Snapshot >>>>>>>>> summary, but I don't think using snapshot summary information to >>>>>>>>> update >>>>>>>>> next-row-id has been discussed before. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hope we can pick up the second point in the catalog sync today. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Sept 2025 at 18:31, Steve <hongyue.apa...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>>>> Verified signatures and checksums, RAT checks and build locally >>>>>>>>>> with JDK17 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 2:33 PM Drew <img...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > +1 (non binding) >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > verified signature and checksums >>>>>>>>>> > verified RAT license check >>>>>>>>>> > verified build/tests passing >>>>>>>>>> > ran some manual tests with GlueCatalog >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > - Drew >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 7:54 AM Jacky Lee <qcsd2...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Built and tested Spark 4.0.1 and Flink 2.0 on JDK17, including >>>>>>>>>> unit >>>>>>>>>> >> tests, basic insert/read operations, and metadata validation. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> >> Jacky Lee >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> 于2025年9月8日周一 16:23写道： >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>> >> > +1 (binding) >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>> >> > Ran following check and tests: >>>>>>>>>> >> > 1. Verified checksum >>>>>>>>>> >> > 2. Verified signature >>>>>>>>>> >> > 3. Ran dev/check-license >>>>>>>>>> >> > 4. Ran `gradlew build` >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>> >> > All passed. >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>> >> > On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 10:36 PM Steven Wu < >>>>>>>>>> stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> +1 (binding) >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> Verified signature, checksum, license >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> Ran build successfully (except for a couple of Spark >>>>>>>>>> extension tests due to my env) >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> Ran Spark 4.0 SQL with V3 format and Java 21 >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> - Insert >>>>>>>>>> >> >> - Update carries over row id and sets snapshot seq num >>>>>>>>>> correctly >>>>>>>>>> >> >> - Select with _row_id and _last_updated_sequence_number >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> Run Flink 2.0 SQL testing with V2 format and Java 21 >>>>>>>>>> >> >> - Insert >>>>>>>>>> >> >> - Streaming read >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> >> >> Steven >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> On Sat, Sep 6, 2025 at 10:19 PM Yuya Ebihara < >>>>>>>>>> yuya.ebih...@starburstdata.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Confirmed that Trino CI is green in Trino PR #25795. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>> It runs tests against several catalogs, including HMS, >>>>>>>>>> Glue, JDBC (PostgreSQL), REST (Polaris, Unity, S3 Tables, Tabular), >>>>>>>>>> Nessie, >>>>>>>>>> and Snowflake. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Yuya >>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 1:38 PM Aihua Xu <aihu...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> I have verified the signature and checksum, completed the >>>>>>>>>> build and unit tests, and ran basic Spark table creation and queries. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> I also executed the tests against our Snowflake internal >>>>>>>>>> test suite. One test failure was observed, related to snapshot >>>>>>>>>> expiry, >>>>>>>>>> caused by Iceberg PR #13614 — “Fix incorrect selection of incremental >>>>>>>>>> cleanup in expire snapshots.” I believe our test should be updated to >>>>>>>>>> reflect the behavior introduced by this fix. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> +1 (non-binding). >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 11:50 AM Steven Wu < >>>>>>>>>> stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> I propose that we release the following RC as the >>>>>>>>>> official Apache Iceberg 1.10.0 release. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> The commit ID is 2114bf631e49af532d66e2ce148ee49dd1dd1f1f >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> * This corresponds to the tag: apache-iceberg-1.10.0-rc5 >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> * >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/commits/apache-iceberg-1.10.0-rc5 >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> * >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/tree/2114bf631e49af532d66e2ce148ee49dd1dd1f1f >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> The release tarball, signature, and checksums are here: >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> * >>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/iceberg/apache-iceberg-1.10.0-rc5 >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> You can find the KEYS file here: >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> * https://downloads.apache.org/iceberg/KEYS >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> Convenience binary artifacts are staged on Nexus. The >>>>>>>>>> Maven repository URL is: >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> * >>>>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheiceberg-1269/ >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> Please download, verify, and test. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> Instructions for verifying a release can be found here: >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> * >>>>>>>>>> https://iceberg.apache.org/how-to-release/#how-to-verify-a-release >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> [ ] +1 Release this as Apache Iceberg 1.10.0 >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> [ ] +0 >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this because... >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> Only PMC members have binding votes, but other community >>>>>>>>>> members are encouraged to cast >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> non-binding votes. This vote will pass if there are 3 >>>>>>>>>> binding +1 votes and more binding >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> +1 votes than -1 votes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
