Thanks, Jan. It’s great to see the spec coming together, and I think we’re getting quite close to starting the voting process.
As discussed in our community sync, the plan is to have one final discussion at the next sync on October 1 and then move to a vote. I’d like to echo Jan’s request for everyone to take another look at the spec and share any remaining feedback before then. Thanks, Walaa On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 7:11 AM Jan Kaul via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > we've made considerable progress with the Iceberg Materialized View > Spec. Marius Grama and Walaa Eldin Moustafa have created POC > implementation of Materialized Views in Spark and Trino to test the > proposed Spec. You can find them here: > > Spark: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9830 > > Trino: https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/31027 > > > The POCs proves that the current specification is sound and provides the > necessary functionality for implementations. > > If you're interested, I invite you to have another look at the spec > again: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11041 > > > There is also another open question: Should we introduce an equivalence > of the "format-version" field for Materialized Views similar to the > Table and View Spec. Generally, it would be desirable to be able to > evolve the Spec independently. However, currently MVs are designed as an > extension to the View Spec and is thus closely coupled. So it's not > entirely clear how this should look like. One option would be to a > "materialized-view-format-version" field to the View Spec. I would be > interested in your opinion. > > > Have a great weekend. Best regards, > > Jan >
