+1 (non-binding) Thanks Huaxin!
On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 7:06 AM Bryan Keller <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 non-binding > > On Aug 13, 2026, at 3:55 PM, Andrei Tserakhau via dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 12:16 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1(binding) >> Yufei >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 1:11 PM vaquar khan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Regards, >>> Viquar Khan >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 3:04 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (binding) >>>> >>>> Thanks Huaxin for driving the discussion and thanks everyone for >>>> contributing. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 11:18 AM Xin Huang via dev < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 11:13 AM Russell Spitzer < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 (binding) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 1:07 PM Hongyue Zhang < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Huaxin! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 11:03 Gianluca Graziadei < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The asymmetric cost argument is the decisive factor for me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An equality delete allows the writer to offload work onto every >>>>>>>> subsequent read, and this deferred cost is neither bounded nor visible >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the party that generated it. Deletion vectors make that cost explicit >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> ensure it is paid only once. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would also like to highlight point 3, which I think is >>>>>>>> underrated: making the upgrade metadata-only decouples V4 adoption from >>>>>>>> delete file migration. Users can move to V4 on their own timeline and >>>>>>>> convert equality deletes as a background maintenance task. Coupling >>>>>>>> the two >>>>>>>> would have turned V4 adoption into a weeks-long operational project for >>>>>>>> large tables. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gianluca >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Il giorno gio 13 ago 2026 alle ore 19:57 Neelesh Salian < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> ha scritto: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 (non binding) Thank you Huaxin. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 19:07 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 >>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.apache.org/thread/ks01jpv40qjlvz4yop5tlqv4x5oxbwy6__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!vsYT4Z_ihSMhUpgRXcXgEUbArKyPoG3WKwSCXmmMtC_0Tg3ICMgaSOoq7WzaKsMaK4-c_vXUCsbXEVhdw7RV0di7e8S-yLUE$> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Huaxin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >
