Hi JB, Could you set up another meeting, please? Same time on Wednesday as last time... I hope it works for everyone.
Cheers, Dmitri. On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 8:06 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 > > >> >> >>> > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
