+1 (non-binding) to deprecate equality deletes in v4. Thank you, Huaxin! On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 10:36 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) to deprecate equality deletes. Thanks, Huaxin! > > Ryan > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 8:16 PM huaxin gao <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Manu, >> >> >> No rewrite of the existing manifests is needed. The V4 root manifest >> references the existing V2/V3 manifests as-is (data manifests and the older >> delete manifests), so upgrade stays metadata-only regardless of table size; >> only the new top-level V4 metadata is written. The equality deletes in >> those carried-over delete manifests are still applied on read (with 2-phase >> planning) until they age off or are converted to DVs by a separate >> maintenance action. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Huaxin >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 10:18 AM Manu Zhang <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Huaxin, >>> >>> To clarify the third point: will upgrading a V2/V3 table to a V4 table >>> require a manifest rewrite? If so, how will that process be handled? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Manu >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 10:07 AM huaxin gao <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Following the discussion thread "[DISCUSS] Deprecate Equality Deletes in >>>> Iceberg V4" [1], I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for >>>> the >>>> V4 table spec. >>>> >>>> Proposal >>>> -------- >>>> 1. Writing new equality deletes is forbidden for V4 tables: the V4 >>>> metadata >>>> will not define equality deletes as an allowed entry type. >>>> >>>> 2. Reading equality deletes remains supported in the reference >>>> implementation for backward compatibility, both for existing V2/V3 >>>> tables and for equality deletes carried over into upgraded V4 tables. >>>> >>>> 3. Upgrading a V2/V3 table to V4 is metadata-only (no synchronous >>>> rewrite >>>> of data or delete files). Existing equality deletes remain in >>>> carried- >>>> over V2/V3 delete manifests; converting them to deletion vectors is a >>>> separate, optional maintenance action. >>>> >>>> Rationale >>>> --------- >>>> Equality deletes impose an asymmetric cost paid on every read, >>>> complicate >>>> the format, and block features such as CDC, row lineage, and incremental >>>> index/materialized-view maintenance. Deletion vectors make deletion a >>>> flat, >>>> one-time cost, and the Flink ConvertEqualityDeletes work demonstrates a >>>> viable replacement path, so we do not need the full replacement >>>> completed >>>> before forbidding new equality deletes in V4. >>>> >>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >>>> >>>> [ ] +1 Forbid writing equality deletes in V4 >>>> [ ] +0 >>>> [ ] -1 Do not forbid (please explain) >>>> >>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/ks01jpv40qjlvz4yop5tlqv4x5oxbwy6 >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Huaxin >>>> >>>
