+1 (non-binding)
Regards Junwang Zhao On Thu, Oct 8, 2026 at 05:25 Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 1:57 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1(binding) >> Yufei >> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 1:55 PM Péter Váry <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > Matt Topol <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. okt. 7., >> Sze, 22:30): >> >> >> >> +1 (binding) >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2026, 4:03 PM Neelesh Salian <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2026 at 03:23 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 >> >>>> Reference implementation: #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 >> >
