I updated PR [2369] to use PURGE_VIEW_METADATA_ON_DROP as the feature flag name.
Please review, approve or comment. As I noted previously, I'm open to other naming suggestions, but this name appears to be the middle ground based on prior discussion. [2369] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2369 Thanks, Dmitri. On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 4:54 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> wrote: > PURGE_VIEW_METADATA_ON_DROP (suggested by Yun) looks like a good middle > ground to me. > > It still has "PURGE", which relates to the underlying machinery in the > Polaris server > that will be triggered to delete related files in storage, and at the same > time it has > "METADATA", which hopefully clarifies the intended behaviour for users. > > WDYT? > > Thanks, > Dmitri. > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 4:27 PM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I like DELETE_METATDATA on drop, but i'm not opposed to purge, if you >> don't >> have strong feelings either way i'm fine with it staying Purge. >> >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 3:14 PM yun zou <yunzou.colost...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > +1 on updating the name to be more accurate — I was initially confused >> > when I first saw the field name. >> > >> > The new proposed name 'DELETE_VIEW_METADATA_ON_DROP' sounds much more >> > clear to me, or if >> > we would like to stay more consistent on the term used, maybe we can >> > call it 'PURGE_VIEW_METADATA_ON_DROP'? >> > >> > Best Regards, >> > Yun >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 7:34 AM Russell Spitzer >> > <russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > My only thought on this is that usually I consider a purge a drop of >> the >> > > "data" but in this case there isn't actually any data, it's only >> > metadata. >> > > >> > > I know we are kind of copying the old hive/Iceberg naming here where >> the >> > > catalog "metadata" was considered independent from the on >> > > disk metadata. So it feels right in that history, I'm just wondering >> if >> > we >> > > can start using a better vocab to describe what's happening. So I have >> > > no issues with going ahead with this, I hope we can find some better >> > > vocabulary around this since the idea of dropping a view with "purge" >> > > still sounds a bit odd to me. >> > > >> > > So overall a +1, but I think we should consider not even having a >> "purge" >> > > verb for views with a possibly different behavior than drop. >> > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 7:24 AM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: >> > > >> > > > +1 >> > > > >> > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 6:22 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < >> di...@apache.org> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi All, >> > > > > >> > > > > I propose to add [1] a new feature flag PURGE_VIEWS_ON_DROP to >> allow >> > > > > dropping views when DROP_WITH_PURGE_ENABLED is false (default). >> > > > > >> > > > > The default value of PURGE_VIEWS_ON_DROP is true to match prior >> > > > behaviour. >> > > > > >> > > > > Any concerns? >> > > > > >> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2369 >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > Dmitri. >> > > > >> > >> >
