Hi Yun, We should indeed review the status of the Generic Tables API, so thanks for starting this discussion!
>From my POV the key question is: how do we intend to proceed with known limitations [1]? I believe the Table Sources proposal [2] addresses some (if not all) of those limitations. It is certainly suitable for the same applications that currently go through the Generic Tables API. I believe it would be wise to allow the Table Sources proposal to develop further to see if there are any synergies that can be leveraged with respect to Generic Tables. If we removed the "beta" label from the Generic Tables API now, it would make it harder for users to benefit from those synergies later (due to virtually freezing the "spec"). At it stands now, the Generic Tables API is supported by Polaris, so existing clients can continue operating normally. [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/f056e22f7f3a7c53e233bef1b88d204d6a8e4d79/site/content/in-dev/unreleased/generic-table.md?plain=1#L162-L169 [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/9f5b75fy25l9yzrtnlzqg6yh1bqdyjbt Thanks, Dmitri. On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 12:33 PM yun zou <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > Generic Table has been available since Polaris 1.0 and has attracted > interest from several users. We also have ongoing improvement and extension > work in progress, including Hudi support, Parquet support, and credential > vending. > > Given this progress, I believe it’s a good time to remove the “beta” label. > If there are no objections, we will remove the “beta” label from the > Generic Table in Polaris 1.3. > > Best Regards, > > Yun >
