+1 (non-binding)
Neelesh Salian <[email protected]> 于2026年5月21日周四 07:48写道： > > +1 (non-binding). PR looks good. Thanks Ryan. > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:45 PM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +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
