+1 from me, just had a comment on some of the wording in the spec. On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 11:38 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 on the new endpoint. I agree that concurrent writes are the sticky part > where we cannot safely use the drop endpoint. > > Yufei > > > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 5:57 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> It sounds like "logic" to me. Today the catalogs are dealing with that >> "specifically". So something in the spec makes sense. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:50 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I just opened a PR to add an `unregister` endpoint to the REST spec, >>> #16400 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16400>. Unregister is >>> the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a table from a catalog >>> without deleting its underlying data and metadata files. The purpose is to >>> allow moving from one catalog to another. >>> >>> I think it was just an oversight that we didn't already have this. I >>> know that we've talked about adding a way to unregister a table in the >>> past, but I didn't see a previous email thread so I thought I'd start this >>> one. We originally assumed that the drop table endpoint would work, but we >>> need a different one for two reasons. First, most REST catalogs take care >>> of table cleanup (rather than putting the responsibility on the user or >>> engine at the time DROP is run) and we need a way to prevent files from >>> being removed. Second, DROP doesn't work for concurrent operations. We need >>> to return the current table state and metadata location from the >>> `unregister` operation and have the assurance that it is the latest state >>> from the catalog and that any other operations against the table will fail. >>> >>> Please take a look and reply. If there aren't many objections, I'll try >>> to start a vote thread sometime this week. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ryan >>> >>
