Hi everyone, The vote passes with 8 +1 votes (5 binding) and no -1 or +0 votes. Thanks everyone for the reviews and votes!
All review comments have been addressed in the PR, and I will merge it by the end of tomorrow: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/17822 Thanks, Huaxin On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 5:58 PM Junwang Zhao <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2026 at 12:38 AM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > +1, also left a nit, but looks good otherwise to me. > > > > Thanks! > > Szehon > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 5:35 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> +1 (binding). I also left a few minor comments but the general spec > change LGTM > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 3:20 AM huaxin gao <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Ryan! I have addressed your comments in the PR, including > allowing type promotion for fields referenced by a check constraint. > >>> > >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 4:36 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I think there are some edits to be more clear that should not prevent > this from passing and I also noted some minor issues that I would fix, like > disallowing type promotion when fields are referenced by a check > constraint. Overall +1. > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 2:24 PM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> +1 (non-binding). I have reviewed the spec and I think it is ready > to go. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 1:17 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +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 > > > > -- > Regards > Junwang Zhao >
