+1 (nb) Gabor
Yufei Gu <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. nov. 2., H, 20:40): > +1 (binding) > Yufei > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 11:27 AM huaxin gao <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 10:52 AM Russell Spitzer < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> +1 binding > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 12:00 AM Maninder Parmar < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 (non-binding) > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2026, 7:20 PM Junwang Zhao <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 (non-binding) > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 1:48 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> > Hi, > >>>> > > >>>> > I propose adding a _last_updated_time metadata column to row > lineage for v4 > >>>> > tables. It records the timestamp of the snapshot that last updated > a row, > >>>> > complementing _last_updated_sequence_number with a wall-clock time. > >>>> > > >>>> > Summary of the spec change: > >>>> > * New reserved metadata column _last_updated_time (timestamptz). > >>>> > * New optional tracking field snapshot_timestamp (timestamptz) in > v4 manifests. > >>>> > Writers leave it null for added entries and for entries modified > by > >>>> > column files. On read, a null value is inherited from the > snapshot's > >>>> > timestamp-ms. > >>>> > * Upgrading to v4 does not require rewriting manifest lists or > manifests. > >>>> > Pre-v4 metadata is read as if snapshot_timestamp is null, so > exising rows > >>>> > get the timestamp of the last snapshot before the v4 upgrade. > >>>> > > >>>> > This works well with the earlier v4 spec change that requires > monotonically > >>>> > increasing snapshot timestamps (#16294). Because each snapshot's > timestamp-ms > >>>> > is strictly greater than its parent's on the same branch, > _last_updated_time > >>>> > follows the same order as _last_updated_sequence_number. > >>>> > > >>>> > This enables queries for when a row was last updated and for > >>>> > rows modified since a given time, without mapping sequence numbers > >>>> > back to snapshots that may have expired. > >>>> > > >>>> > Spec PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/18526 > >>>> > > >>>> > Please vote in the next 72 hours: > >>>> > > >>>> > [ ] +1 Adopt the spec change > >>>> > [ ] +0 No preference > >>>> > [ ] -1 Do not adopt the spec change (please explain) > >>>> > > >>>> > Thanks, Steven > >>>> > > >>>> > Discussion thread: > >>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/cln7xtjy9kw2096gzqlg5c4gg8b9td10 > >>>> > > >>>> > Monotonic snapshot timestamp PR: > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16294 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Regards > >>>> Junwang Zhao >
