Thanks for organizing the vote. Since we have a result now, do we plan to update the spec?
On 2026/08/18 06:37:25 huaxin gao wrote: > The vote passes with 7 binding +1's and 17 non-binding +1's, and no 0 or > -1's. > > Thanks everyone for the voting and discussion! > > Best, > Huaxin > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 4:24 AM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 9:06 AM Junwang Zhao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > >> > >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 11:32 PM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > +1 (non-binding) > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Max > >> > > >> > Szehon Ho <[email protected]> schrieb am Fr. 14. Aug. 2026 um > >> 22:07: > >> >> > >> >> +1 > >> >> > >> >> Thanks > >> >> Szehon > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 10:56 AM Matt Butrovich <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> +1 (non-binding) > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks Huaxin! > >> >>> > >> >>> -Matt > >> >>> > >> >>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 9:34 AM Talat Uyarer via dev < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> +1 non-binding > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:31 PM Alex Stephen via dev < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> +1 non-binding > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Thanks for driving this! > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 7:17 PM Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> +1 (non-binding) > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 9:37 AM Manu Zhang < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> +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 > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Huaxin > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards > >> Junwang Zhao > >> > > >
