+1 (non-binding) On Thu, Oct 8, 2026 at 7:00 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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 >>>> >>>
