+1 (binding) On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 1:09 PM Russell Spitzer <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) - I have a few minor comments on the text itself but I think > all the substance is correct. > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 12:37 PM Andrei Tserakhau via dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 8:22 PM huaxin gao <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I'd like to start a vote to add table constraints to the Iceberg v4 >>> table spec: >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/17822 >>> >>> Summary of the change: >>> >>> - Adds three constraint types: `check`, `unique`, and `primary-key` >>> - Constraint definitions are stored in table metadata, with an >>> `enforced` flag that controls whether writers must verify the rows they >>> add >>> or modify >>> - Each snapshot records the status of each constraint in >>> `constraint-statuses`: `validated`, `valid`, `invalid`, or `unvalidated` >>> - A `primary-key` constraint replaces identifier field IDs in v4. >>> When a table is upgraded to v4, its identifier fields are converted to a >>> `primary-key` constraint that is not enforced >>> >>> >>> Thanks to everyone who reviewed the PR and joined the constraint syncs. >>> >>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >>> >>> [ ] +1 Add table constraints to the v4 spec >>> [ ] +0 >>> [ ] -1 I have concerns because ... >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Huaxin >>> >>
