+1 (binding) On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 11:59 PM Aihua Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > > Thanks > Aihua > > On Oct 7, 2026, at 5:58 PM, Junwang Zhao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +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 >>> >>
