+1 (binding) thanks! On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:23 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:15 PM Steve <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration scenarios. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Alex >> > >> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > +1 >> > > >> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> +1 >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> Hi everyone, >> > >>> >> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister` >> endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is >> #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. This >> requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata >> files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table >> should be returned. >> > >>> >> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours, >> > >>> >> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec >> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . . >> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . . >> > >>> >> > >>> Thanks, >> > >>> >> > >>> Ryan >> >
