+1 on another sync call next week. Yufei
On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 4:52 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > WDYT about another sync call next week? > > Thanks, > Dmitri. > > On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 5:29 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi EJ, > > > > Thanks for the summary! It covers what we discussed in the meeting very > > well, IMHO. > > > > Looking forward to concrete PRs :) > > > > Cheers, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 5:08 PM EJ Wang <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> We had a community sync earlier, thanks JB for scheduling it. Notes from > >> the first metrics architecture sync (May 6, 10-11am PT). Discussion doc > >> with per-section status: > >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/100h7c4damrUzVuquYbBHM0EvA4LSWuW2IT2dN_7nYVA/edit?tab=t.0 > >> > >> *The meeting covered both topics from the doc. Direction-level alignment > >> was reached on the headline pieces; details remain for PR review or > >> follow-up sessions.* > >> > >> *Topic 1 — Persistence schema redesign* > >> Idea-level alignment on consolidating per-type tables > >> (scan_metrics_report, > >> commit_metrics_report) into a single metrics_report table. The > motivating > >> cost is the surface area added by every new metric type today: new > table, > >> SPI method, record class, model, converter, schema migration. > >> > >> Most schema details are deferred to the schema PR. A few specific points > >> came up: > >> • metric_schema_version: Yufei prefers dropping it, since there is no > >> spec-level concept of metrics versioning today and it is hard to define > >> unilaterally. Robert prefers keeping it, given IRC v2 is coming and the > >> schema should be considered against its likely shape; Robert also raised > >> how to differentiate various payload formats if any. EJ's read is that > >> this > >> is a two-way-door decision. We can start without the field, and if IRC > v2 > >> changes the shape we would likely roll a corresponding new schema > anyway, > >> which is not particularly costly. > >> • Payload format: Robert pointed out that future formats beyond JSON > may > >> be worth supporting. The exact shape is deferred to the schema > discussion. > >> • Partition strategy: Anand suggested monthly partitioning based on > his > >> experience as potentially helpful at scale. > >> > >> *Topic 2 — Where metrics ingestion and storage belong* > >> Idea-level alignment that metrics should be a separated SPI from the > >> entity > >> persistence stack. Two reasons surfaced: (a) workloads and capability > >> requirements diverge enough that coupling them creates artificial > >> constraints, and (b) admin experience improves when metrics has its own > >> bootstrap, retention, and lifecycle. Dmitri noted Polaris being a > platform > >> should have the flexibility to support different persistence backends > per > >> concern, and pointed to a concrete next step of separating the JDBC > >> bootstrap for metrics from the metastore bootstrap. Robert proposed an > >> additional UX extension: detect an unbootstrapped metrics store on first > >> use and auto-bootstrap rather than requiring an explicit manual > bootstrap > >> step. > >> The meeting also confirmed that Polaris metrics can start small and stay > >> Iceberg-focused. Naming and persistence schema can lean > Iceberg-specific. > >> If a future expansion to generic-table metrics or operational metrics > >> arrives, an abstraction layer can be built on top of the Iceberg metrics > >> reporter at that point. Robert remains on the fence and would prefer > >> something more generic but did not block the direction; Dmitri's read > was > >> that the proposed framework already has enough flexibility to absorb > >> future > >> expansion. > >> > >> The Trade-offs and Proposed structure sections in the doc were not > >> reviewed > >> in detail. They remain open for either the next sync or PR review. > >> > >> *Cross-cutting alignment — battery-included plus pluggable* > >> A common philosophy emerged from the discussion. EJ summarized it as: > >> Polaris should provide a battery-included UX for beginners and the > >> flexibility for advanced users to swap the included battery for > something > >> more powerful or tailored to their use case. The SPI design needs to > >> enable > >> both. > >> > >> The inputs that shaped this framing: > >> • Anand described how his team uses the current metrics persistence > >> (three metrics consumers in v1.4). > >> • Yufei raised Grafana and dashboard integrations as a destination use > >> case beyond the default. > >> • Robert called out that the current design is more JDBC-focused. > >> > >> Two concrete instances: > >> • Async metrics intake: Yufei's initial position was that async should > >> largely live on the producer side and there is not much Polaris can do. > >> Robert suggested a Polaris-side default is doable via Vert.x. Dmitri > >> agreed > >> the direction is worth exploring. The meeting converged on a > >> battery-included default (likely Vert.x-backed) with an SPI shape that > >> lets > >> power users route to a more scalable backend (k8s-hosted queue, AWS SQS, > >> etc.). > >> • Pluggable destinations: combining Yufei's dashboard use case with > >> Robert's JDBC-focused call-out, the meeting agreed the SPI should be > >> structured for multiple sinks so integrations become impl choices rather > >> than architectural changes. > >> > >> The battery-included default is most likely to use the existing > >> JDBC-backed > >> approach. > >> > >> *Direction (idea-level alignment)* > >> • Single metrics_report table consolidating per-type metrics, > replacing > >> scan_metrics_report and commit_metrics_report > >> • Iceberg-focused naming and schema for now, revisit if generic-table > or > >> operational metrics arrive > >> • Metrics persistence as a separated SPI, not on BasePersistence > >> • Bootstrap path separated for metrics, independent of metastore > >> bootstrap > >> • "Battery-included plus pluggable" as the SPI design philosophy > >> > >> *Open items* > >> • Schema details: metric_schema_version, payload format, IRC v2 > >> forward-compat shape > >> • SPI design details — full review either in the next sync or in the > >> corresponding PR > >> • Schema refactor PR ownership > >> > >> *Action items* > >> • EJ to take a first stab at the SPI design and potentially partner > with > >> Anand to incorporate the lessons learned from the existing reporter and > >> persistence work. > >> • Schema refactor PR ownership is not yet decided. If anyone is > >> interested in driving it, reply on this thread. > >> • JB to schedule the next sync, tentatively in two weeks. > >> > >> -ej > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 3:07 PM EJ Wang <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks Yufei for the +1. > >> > > >> > JB, could you help add a biweekly metrics architecture sync to the > >> Polaris > >> > community calendar? I'm thinking Thursdays at 9-10am PT, on the > >> off-weeks > >> > from the community meeting (starting May 7), 60 minutes. > >> > > >> > Here's a rough agenda to work through over the first few sessions, > >> grouped > >> > by priority: > >> > > >> > *First: foundational direction* > >> > > >> > 1. MetricsPersistence: public SPI or internal implementation detail? > >> > • Marked @Beta, javadoc calls it a "Service Provider Interface", > >> but > >> > only one consumer (JdbcBasePersistenceImpl), lives on BasePersistence. > >> If > >> > demoted to a private helper inside a persisting reporter impl, most > >> > downstream design decisions become implementation details rather than > >> > contract questions. > >> > > >> > 2. Persistence schema redesign > >> > • Current two-table layout (scan_metrics_report, > >> > commit_metrics_report) with ~25 flattened columns each. Every new > metric > >> > type requires a new table, SPI method, record class, model, converter, > >> and > >> > schema migration. Direction to explore: single table with metric_type > >> enum, > >> > schema_version, and JSON payload column. > >> > > >> > *Second: design details once direction is set* > >> > > >> > 3. Partition key strategy > >> > • Single-table design means scan metrics at scale will have high > >> > write concurrency per table. Schema needs to expose enough structure > for > >> > backends to shard by entity or time range. > >> > > >> > 4. Read/write path consistency > >> > • Writes go through PolarisMetricsManager on MetaStoreManager. > >> Reads > >> > bypass MetaStoreManager and go straight to BasePersistence, excluding > >> > non-JDBC backends from the read API. > >> > > >> > *Third: cleanup and alignment* > >> > > >> > 5. PolarisMetricsReporter naming > >> > • Only handles IRC (ScanReport/CommitReport), doesn't cover > generic > >> > tables or operational metrics. Name is broader than scope. > >> > > >> > 6. PolarisMetricsManager facade passthrough > >> > • Entire default method is > >> callCtx.getMetaStore().writeScanReport(). > >> > Zero logic, passes Level 1 straight through to Level 3. Same > >> anti-pattern > >> > as PolarisEventManager. > >> > > >> > 7. Iceberg community alignment > >> > • Payload-type extension needs discussion on dev@iceberg. > >> obelix74's > >> > Feb thread got zero replies. Needs a committer voice. > >> > > >> > Lets confirm prioritization in the first session. > >> > > >> > -ej > >> > > >> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 3:18 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Thanks everyone for continuing to drive this forward. I agree that > the > >> >> problem is getting complex enough that a more structured discussion > >> would > >> >> help. > >> >> > >> >> +1 on setting up a biweekly sync for the metrics architecture. I’m > >> happy > >> >> to > >> >> join. > >> >> > >> >> Yufei > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:34 PM EJ Wang < > >> [email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Also, I've been looking more closely at the *persistence schema in > >> the > >> >> > current metrics work*, and I think there's a structural rigidity > >> problem > >> >> > worth raising before the shape gets locked in. > >> >> > > >> >> > Right now we have two separate tables (scan_metrics_report and > >> >> > commit_metrics_report), each with ~25 flattened columns that > directly > >> >> > mirror the Iceberg report fields. The SPI follows the same split: > >> >> > writeScanReport and writeCommitReport as separate methods, with > >> per-type > >> >> > record classes, converters, and model objects. *The practical cost: > >> >> > adding a new metric type (operational metrics, for example) > requires > >> a > >> >> new > >> >> > table, a new SPI method, a new record class, a new model class, a > new > >> >> > converter branch, and a schema migration*. That's a lot of surface > >> area > >> >> > for what should be "one more kind of metric." > >> >> > > >> >> > *My bias* would be toward a single metrics table with *a typed JSON > >> >> > payload*. Something like: metric_type (enum), entity_id, > >> >> > table_identifier, snapshot_id (nullable), received_ts, > >> schema_version, > >> >> and > >> >> > a payload column for the metric-specific data. The metric_type + > >> >> > schema_version pair gives us a forward-compatible contract for the > >> >> payload > >> >> > shape. Adding a new metric type becomes an enum value and a payload > >> >> schema, > >> >> > not a schema migration. One thing I think we need to be deliberate > >> >> about is > >> >> > the partition key design. If all metric types land in one table, > scan > >> >> > metrics at scale (high concurrency, high frequency across many > >> tables) > >> >> > could easily create hot partitions. We'd want the persistence layer > >> to > >> >> be > >> >> > able to shard by entity or time range, and that means the logical > >> schema > >> >> > needs to expose enough structure for backends to partition on. I > >> don't > >> >> > think the current flattened layout gives us that. > >> >> > > >> >> > This is getting complex enough that I don't think ad-hoc PR/ML > >> threads > >> >> > will converge well. *Would people be open to a biweekly sync for > >> metrics > >> >> > architecture?* I think 30 minutes every two weeks with interested > >> >> parties > >> >> > would be enough to work through the schema, SPI shape, and read API > >> >> design > >> >> > together. Happy to help set that up. > >> >> > > >> >> > -ej > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 2:19 PM EJ Wang < > >> [email protected] > >> >> > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Reviewed #4115, left a comment on the code organization side. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> One thing stood out: the metrics write path enters through > >> >> >> PolarisMetricsManager on MetaStoreManager, but the new read path > >> >> bypasses > >> >> >> MetaStoreManager entirely and goes straight to BasePersistence via > >> >> >> callContext.getMetaStore(). That means the read API only works for > >> >> backends > >> >> >> that implement BasePersistence. NoSQL and remote backends can't > >> >> participate. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Stepping back, I think the metrics subsystem is growing into > >> something > >> >> >> real (write + read + REST API + AuthZ + pagination) *but the > >> >> persistence > >> >> >> side is split across two layers in a way that's hard to extend*. I > >> put > >> >> >> together two diagrams to show what I mean (my best effort). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> *Current state* (Diagram 1): three interfaces at three different > >> >> levels. > >> >> >> The engine-facing SPI (PolarisMetricsReporter) is clean. But > >> >> >> PolarisMetricsManager on MetaStoreManager is a passthrough to > >> >> >> MetricsPersistence on BasePersistence. The @Beta annotation and > SPI > >> >> javadoc > >> >> >> are on the BasePersistence layer, while the actual extension > points > >> >> >> (PolarisMetricsReporter, PolarisMetricsManager) carry no stability > >> >> >> annotation. The write path goes through the MetaStoreManager > layer, > >> the > >> >> >> read path doesn't. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> *What I envision* (Diagram 2): two SPIs at two levels. > >> >> >> PolarisMetricsReporter stays as the engine-facing SPI. > >> >> >> PolarisMetricsManager becomes the backend-facing SPI with both > write > >> >> and > >> >> >> read methods at the MetaStoreManager level, where any backend > (JDBC, > >> >> NoSQL, > >> >> >> remote) can implement them. MetricsPersistence on BasePersistence > >> goes > >> >> >> away. Where metrics actually land is an implementation detail, > not a > >> >> core > >> >> >> interface. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> *Minor naming thing*: PolarisMetricsReporter is broader than what > it > >> >> >> actually handles. It only accepts Iceberg REST Catalog metrics > >> >> (ScanReport, > >> >> >> CommitReport via MetricsReport). Generic table metrics or > >> operational > >> >> >> metrics aren't in scope. Not blocking, but worth noting if the > >> metrics > >> >> >> surface expands. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> *Rough sketch of how to get there*: > >> >> >> 1. Add read methods to PolarisMetricsManager (listScanReports, > >> >> >> listCommitReports) with default no-op, same as the existing write > >> >> methods. > >> >> >> (Probably make PolarisMetricsManager more explicit on being > Iceberg > >> >> >> specific like package name or class name etc.) > >> >> >> 2. Wire MetricsReportsService through MetaStoreManager instead > of > >> >> >> callContext.getMetaStore(). > >> >> >> 3. Extract metrics persistence from JdbcBasePersistenceImpl into > >> its > >> >> >> own class. That file carries ~7 responsibilities, metrics being > one > >> of > >> >> them. > >> >> >> 4. Remove MetricsPersistence from BasePersistence. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> *None of this needs to happen in #4115. But if the direction makes > >> >> sense, > >> >> >> it would be good to align before the metrics surface grows > further. > >> >> Curious > >> >> >> what others think.* > >> >> >> > >> >> >> *My mental model note*: Level 1 MetaStoreManager; level 2 > >> transactional > >> >> >> persistence; level 3 base persistence > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Diagram 1 > >> >> >> < > >> >> > >> > https://www.plantuml.com/plantuml/uml/bLHDR-Cs4BthLmpIYupw0zbkKQ1r3M-S7Bp8xhhM7WCOb3IM65EaGD9EX2RzxHrHb4CxRelwa4YSDu_lpOVcnZ9jzvM8BBS2uGjQpJC3dtHMSekPtMk44IpsMgEqa5XcCOhCZikQQLP1pR8TAp2n3ILhmZDP20m0fcIvUkAoW2qJXd9z1bpToO9BX3WXu0ucy5rpgGPNm0nW5_epUWtm2Ue3pn3kMOFQmKntGZW0BYtgBSi8k5A2QMwybJNMIbFiGSR9QZc4nUqIvikStF0jHprua5C-amge42aNt3R0f5JaaoivdV2Pkqbx4hee4ymOkBh5BTiB-_uIeGeo8zL8rPsPl4DktdEiK1jkB1NdZCRbrSTecDe_mlHbF0wvBmCkaOH5_S8a_TTTKI6-nmCAkEw4LpxsZ-LbYLKQFKMNOgf_wuM7_bV9gOer5SYMMksBSWXFcbi49KNZXNLicwfe3TETC7gPdPqI7uBcHMb1RSzYq34c6PDUM9mn8HRsUTZEiDBve3NjVZumBj0U7SS37mGO7vcwtiK-_pU7U7L_f-digo9YbhSwIfMRwIITKGXbxdIUTCGF1SeCJxloKsU-3k9ddRbX1eDq1q_fx1JbBGT0glVyXimDuP4TQ5qpCAmnGEj2s_6n5mtn1z-97-63itFQZLPO1Ev2tu_WF7Ju-VPc0Skg5bYXxBhkY1xpD7EM_7fyflSpIsqMgVth5xhVr4eQxWQ8enaSAJQSG16yFSDuJ798rrcXr_3n-lfdk7icQjEBmFujL7AodiP_Y4Z7-YxvtZNs4zMgpNTl6tF8sglyPsmqchrjvQ-m-aP94r-TwCA2Ka8upPJZwtvSpoYCXkYMZU2NXvRMBfq9P3i3Le4VAZUAlUZ_oPKsxPgY0Q_BSKLkyr9bhQhQrJjo_x3TPlIB0DPjnMfcIoYP0QaYw1a0fTKDr8fB6ntNuvmoL1ZGkXa69Njh43zf9GiGxHQrA_jDYWRSzF5--WmTVrN97_Sm8LbLUy_lGBmLanJjFkDlGkRqjA_4tm00 > >> >> > > >> >> >> : > >> >> >> > >> >> >> [image: image.png] > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Diagram 2 > >> >> >> < > >> >> > >> > https://www.plantuml.com/plantuml/uml/VLLDR-8m4BtdLupO2sWBLVU8AaGB7AXAbssGzb896SS9RXqxjKqBwkv_tt7iV43fdaZYDpFlpRmnOsE9jhjSH9PRmM31hERKm8scMsuPjJlDe0yheZDc8RR4iYWoBrmMH9CS2a9VICPYUy1OZN0YCy5Q0BCbYNhdCeEK28En8G8wCvbnoQ0R8_05Bc6bkLIz3X03p1zzH7zR-9ZfDquPt9C3qoNCX2yV4G2NbkcKu5jdgGJHt0GbZwnG6i-UP3TUpk5gM6Ldqke350eZUqzoCft3U9xWHvxoa5-7K4nF1J46EbEMafsmdrCBbQ44gVggy18IZrn_ph5asd1ZiIKdQSgueZvjXrQFSFrdC3YN-nXmBacxbGiYyLVxLaBtdhqn0LSzdBDhqQtQoOJeGyad3z0lUqnYgpGB6Ns8oVyta00Dy_WnX0tIOZ8v6SYxHll1TrH6aejAik-mh-AphVFCwSUQqFypElag5QRGFDjQKEd96K1P8QP41c9TzA_IIQyvdAWyv_RSiS3skb0_EzDDkK2v5xWF6MiGFlvhpFLcD2Dq2pml14gaF67eQkmd8gulDoC4kSOu6KVpkvlUJg1RTbWISU40RdBUUS_9XfRZ2dwxm_SW8LYFISgm_MnlDQ6M9P1gbKEc4X-2pH_FvJCkCqm9pbVjD6LrwdLeOrDWfOaqc8Wh9BE85oNKxkNQ6o4yGRy_Eae0G_G8tZv81d3bHDB23WOdisohVr3nh_j6lbSjbNaLRTc8UgtPbAU1J_tygOfZX9DWEJeHDvYx-qmSi5FgNLPZwHrHcUsncGQ5-skhUclpE5fo4ounpFauYrUbkU6ccfnxMvitwag4IyerhTxj8In_Oj1bDO4pQru674loYrGlULHLEGCjwJJ8gDoVZR8MxO4BT3IzRvIcAQKezC6xpziGnTyImrfEGyJI_OcKfgtxIvnTqFEMS17L9Z-jsARN5FmTheP7HtSdtOMT0B4GY2FYHXxgQmMtj2bRqiLFGapiVe1_QVKDrkqXcm83aFEXnMYCZ-xlyHy > >> >> > > >> >> >> : > >> >> >> [image: image.png] > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -ej > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 8:22 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > >> [email protected]> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> Hi All, > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Heads up: The current state of PR [4115] looks pretty solid to > me. > >> I > >> >> >>> believe this PR is approaching a mergeable condition. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Please post your reviews if you have any comments. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> [4115] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4115 > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Thanks, > >> >> >>> Dmitri. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 3:29 PM Anand Kumar Sankaran via dev < > >> >> >>> [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Hi Yufei and Dmitri, > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Here is a proposal for the REST endpoints for metrics and > events. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3924/changes > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > I did not see any precursors for raising a PR for proposals, so > >> >> trying > >> >> >>> > this. Please let me know what you think. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > - > >> >> >>> > Anand > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > From: Anand Kumar Sankaran <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> > Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 at 10:25 AM > >> >> >>> > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> > Subject: Re: Polaris Telemetry and Audit Trail > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > About the REST API, based on my use cases: > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > 1. > >> >> >>> > I want to be able to query commit metrics to track files added > / > >> >> >>> removed > >> >> >>> > per commit, along with record counts. The ingestion pipeline > that > >> >> >>> writes > >> >> >>> > this data is owned by us and we are guaranteed to write this > >> >> >>> information > >> >> >>> > for each write. > >> >> >>> > 2. > >> >> >>> > I want to be able to query scan metrics for read. I understand > >> >> clients > >> >> >>> do > >> >> >>> > not fulfill this requirement. > >> >> >>> > 3. > >> >> >>> > I want to be able to query the events table (events are > >> persisted) - > >> >> >>> this > >> >> >>> > may supersede #2, I am not sure yet. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > All this information is in the JDBC based persistence model and > >> is > >> >> >>> > persisted in the metastore. I currently don’t have a need to > >> query > >> >> >>> > prometheus or open telemetry. I do publish some events to > >> Prometheus > >> >> >>> and > >> >> >>> > they are forwarded to our dashboards elsewhere. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > About the CLI utilities, I meant the admin user utilities. In > >> one of > >> >> >>> the > >> >> >>> > earliest drafts of my proposal, Prashant mentioned that the > >> metrics > >> >> >>> tables > >> >> >>> > can grow indefinitely and that a similar problem exists with > the > >> >> events > >> >> >>> > table as well. We discussed that cleaning up of old records > from > >> >> both > >> >> >>> > metrics tables and events tables can be done via a CLI utility. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > I see that Yufei has covered the discussion about datasources. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > - > >> >> >>> > Anand > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > From: Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> > Date: Friday, February 27, 2026 at 9:54 PM > >> >> >>> > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> > Subject: Re: Polaris Telemetry and Audit Trail > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > This Message Is From an External Sender > >> >> >>> > This message came from outside your organization. > >> >> >>> > Report Suspicious< > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> > https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/Iz9xO38YGHZK!YhNDZABkHi1B699ote2uMwpOZw8i0QMCGO2Szc-HshuABGhGvwPJcymE6G2oUUxtS8xDkSrtGTPm_I3QnVDHoLMk50m9v8z_nZKTkd-bnVUbreF1u0WnfV_X5eYevZl_$ > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > As I mentioned in > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3890__;!!Iz9xO38YGHZK!5EuyFFkk3vhRWVIRvQAWBSQfpJkTMA9HxugzDwXmN0LPPqhEFxYkFRGVhtb8AqUwXtDh2OplcMnbMDHKOxrvDU0$ > >> >> >>> , > >> >> >>> > supporting > >> >> >>> > multiple data sources is not a trivial change. I would strongly > >> >> >>> recommend > >> >> >>> > starting with a design document to carefully evaluate the > >> >> architectural > >> >> >>> > implications and long term impact. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > A REST endpoint to query metrics seems reasonable given the > >> current > >> >> >>> JDBC > >> >> >>> > based persistence model. That said, we may also consider > >> alternative > >> >> >>> > storage models. For example, if we later adopt a time series > >> system > >> >> >>> such as > >> >> >>> > Prometheus to store metrics, the query model and access > patterns > >> >> would > >> >> >>> be > >> >> >>> > fundamentally different. Designing the REST API without > >> considering > >> >> >>> these > >> >> >>> > potential evolutions may limit flexibility. I'd suggest to > start > >> >> with > >> >> >>> the > >> >> >>> > use case. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Yufei > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 3:42 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > >> >> [email protected]> > >> >> >>> > wrote: > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > Hi Anand, > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > Sharing my view... subject to discussion: > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > 1. Adding non-IRC REST API to Polaris is perfectly fine. > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > Figuring out specific endpoint URIs and payloads might > require > >> a > >> >> few > >> >> >>> > > roundtrips, so opening a separate thread for that might be > >> best. > >> >> >>> > > Contributors commonly create Google Docs for new API > proposals > >> too > >> >> >>> (they > >> >> >>> > > fairly easy to update as the email discussion progresses). > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > There was a suggestion to try Markdown (with PRs) for > proposals > >> >> [1] > >> >> >>> ... > >> >> >>> > > feel free to give it a try if you are comfortable with that. > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > 2. Could you clarify whether you mean end user utilities or > >> admin > >> >> >>> user > >> >> >>> > > utilities? In the latter case those might be more suitable > for > >> the > >> >> >>> Admin > >> >> >>> > > CLI (java) not the Python CLI, IMHO. > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > Why would these utilities be common with events? IMHO, event > >> use > >> >> >>> cases > >> >> >>> > are > >> >> >>> > > distinct from scan/commit metrics. > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > 3. I'd prefer separating metrics persistence from MetaStore > >> >> >>> persistence > >> >> >>> > at > >> >> >>> > > the code level, so that they could be mixed and matched > >> >> >>> independently. > >> >> >>> > The > >> >> >>> > > separate datasource question will become a non-issue with > that > >> >> >>> approach, > >> >> >>> > I > >> >> >>> > > guess. > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > The rationale for separating scan metrics and metastore > >> >> persistence > >> >> >>> is > >> >> >>> > that > >> >> >>> > > "cascading deletes" between them are hardly ever required. > >> >> >>> Furthermore, > >> >> >>> > the > >> >> >>> > > data and query patterns are very different so different > >> >> technologies > >> >> >>> > might > >> >> >>> > > be beneficial in each case. > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > [1] > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.apache.org/thread/yto2wp982t43h1mqjwnslswhws5z47cy__;!!Iz9xO38YGHZK!5EuyFFkk3vhRWVIRvQAWBSQfpJkTMA9HxugzDwXmN0LPPqhEFxYkFRGVhtb8AqUwXtDh2OplcMnbMDHKxYDakNU$ > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > Cheers, > >> >> >>> > > Dmitri. > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 6:19 PM Anand Kumar Sankaran via dev > < > >> >> >>> > > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > > Thanks all. This PR is merged now. > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > > > Here are the follow-up features / work needed. These were > >> all > >> >> >>> part of > >> >> >>> > > the > >> >> >>> > > > merged PR at some point in time and were removed to reduce > >> >> scope. > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > > > Please let me know what you think. > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > > > 1. A REST API to paginate through table metrics. This > >> will be > >> >> >>> > non-IRC > >> >> >>> > > > standard addition. > >> >> >>> > > > 2. Utilities for managing old records, should be common > >> with > >> >> >>> events. > >> >> >>> > > > There was some discussion that it belongs to the CLI. > >> >> >>> > > > 3. Separate datasource (metrics, events, even other > >> tables?). > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > > > Anything else? > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > > > - > >> >> >>> > > > Anand > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
