+1 (non-binding)
huaxin gao <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 >> Yufei >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:37 AM Prashant Singh <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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
