+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 12:54 PM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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 >>>>>> >>>>>
