+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 12:36 PM huaxin gao <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 12:28 PM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 11:30 AM Andrei Tserakhau via dev < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 8:27 PM Russell Spitzer < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 1:23 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I propose requiring each new snapshot in a v4 table to have a >>>>> timestamp-ms strictly greater than its parent snapshot’s timestamp on >>>>> the same branch. Root snapshots are unconstrained, and v1–v3 behavior >>>>> remains unchanged. >>>>> >>>>> This ensures snapshot timestamps align with snapshot order. This >>>>> change would resolve time travel issues caused by out-of-order snapshot >>>>> timestamps. This can also enable a row timestamp metadata column inherited >>>>> from the snapshot timestamp (a separate follow-up v4 spec change). >>>>> >>>>> Spec PR: #16294 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16294> >>>>> Reference implementation: #16293 >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16293> >>>>> >>>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours: >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 Adopt the requirement >>>>> [ ] +0 No preference >>>>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt the requirement (please explain) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Steven >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Discussion thread: >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/cln7xtjy9kw2096gzqlg5c4gg8b9td10 >>>>> >>>>
