Hi JB, I've added an agenda item to the next community sync call for this (Sept 17, 2026).
Re: key points: did you mean a real GH discussion or dev email (this thread)? Just double checking :) I'm fine with either approach. Cheers, Dmitri. On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 12:54 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dmitri, > > I agree on the need to align on these points, though I'm not entirely > sure a dedicated meeting is necessary. Let's start by using some time > during the next community meeting to discuss it. > > In the meantime, what if we outline the key points in a GitHub > Discussion first? We can then use that as a reference during the > meeting. > > Regards, > JB > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 12:50 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > My impression from this thread is that it might be time for a call to > > discuss all the related issues and try to arrive at a shared > implementation > > plan. > > > > I know meetings are not ideal, but in this case it might be beneficial > as a > > means for achieving a common understanding of the set of problems and > > priorities related to this thread. A dedicated metrics meeting worked > well > > from my POV. > > > > Allocating a time slot in the next community meeting might be an option, > > although I think we might need the full hour in this case. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Thanks, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 6:39 PM Prithvi S <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I rewrote https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5035, following the > > > discussion to focus only on the SPI foundation. > > > > > > What is in the PR now: > > > > > > - A written manager-level consistency contract in > > > site/content/in-dev/unreleased/persistence-consistency.md. > > > - CAS-aware EntityMutation / GrantMutation records. > > > - MetaStoreChangeSet and BasePersistence#commitChangeSet, with > backends > > > opting in via supportsAtomicMixedCommit(). > > > - commitChangeSet implementations for the in-memory TreeMap backend > and > > > JDBC. > > > - AtomicOperationMetaStoreManager and > TransactionalMetaStoreManagerImpl > > > grant/revoke paths now build one change set per operation, falling > back > > > to > > > individual operations when the backend does not support mixed > commits. > > > - Tests for the change-set API and TreeMap atomic commits. > > > > > > I intentionally left out: > > > > > > - Entity deletes in MetaStoreChangeSet. > > > - Refactoring createCatalog, dropEntity, and renameEntity to use > change > > > sets. > > > - NoSQL support for commitChangeSet. > > > > > > I am treating this as Phase 1 so the contract and the SPI primitive > can be > > > reviewed before the larger operation migrations land. > > > > > > Could you please take a look? In particular, I would like to know > whether > > > the contract captures the consensus so far, or if it needs to address > retry > > > / external-work coordination before we merge this foundation. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Prithvi S > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 7:40 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > > > > I agree that the client-visible operation (e.g. REST API request) > > > consists > > > > of many distinct phases. The database / persistence changes are just > one > > > of > > > > these phases. STS (as an example) is another. My point about > transactions > > > > in JDBC Persistence applies to the former (database changes) phase - > one > > > > retry attempt there should ideally involve exactly one transaction. > > > > > > > > We certainly need logic inside Polaris Servers to to coordinate > requests > > > to > > > > various external systems depending on outcomes from previous request > > > > processing phases. > > > > > > > > I also agree that validation based on database state should be > repeated > > > > from scratch if we retry the database changes. > > > > > > > > However, internal RBAC authorization naturally has to happen inside > the > > > > database update phase (read-check-write). IIRC, that is part of the > > > > implicit consistency guarantees, which were discussed during early > > > project > > > > months (but never got written down in full clarity, unfortunately). > If > > > the > > > > Authorization check is inside that phase for internal RBAC, I > suppose it > > > > will be there for other Authorizers too and that can involve external > > > > systems (e.g. OPA / Ranger). We can certainly expect authorization > to be > > > > efficient, but I'm not sure how quick it can be in practice. There's > > > > certainly potential for delays in some (perhaps infrequent) cases. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 9:20 AM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitri, > > > > > > > > > > I agree that one logical operation needs a consistent view of the > whole > > > > > backend state. > > > > > What worries me is treating one long JDBC transaction as the > boundary > > > of > > > > > that operation and then retrying the complete request if the commit > > > > fails. > > > > > > > > > > The request can also write metadata to object storage or call STS. > > > > > Each system can leave us with an outcome whose certainty we cannot > > > know. > > > > > The database may have committed before the connection was lost, an > > > > > object-store write may have succeeded before a timeout, or STS may > have > > > > > issued credentials before its response was lost. > > > > > A database rollback cannot undo any of those effects, and retrying > the > > > > > whole request may repeat them. > > > > > > > > > > So I think the contract has to separate the overall operation from > each > > > > > attempt to commit it. > > > > > Each database or backend commit attempt should stay short. > > > > > When we retry, validation and authorization need to use the state > for > > > > that > > > > > new attempt, and we need clear rules for which external work can be > > > > reused, > > > > > repeated, cleaned up, or reconciled after an uncertain outcome. > > > > > > > > > > Some contextual state could be useful for carrying that state. > > > > > But the JDBC connection and transaction should be an implementation > > > > detail > > > > > inside it, not the boundary of the complete operation. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 11:04 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of a backend-agnostic change-set primitive sounds good. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I am not sure it is sufficient for all the use cases we > > > > touched > > > > > > here. More specifically, the state read by validation code is not > > > > > > necessarily reflected in the change set: > > > > > > > > > > > > * Unchanged entities might be considered by validation, but > changed > > > in > > > > a > > > > > > parallel request. > > > > > > * Even for changed entities the state read by validation may > differ > > > > from > > > > > > the state being altered. Some validation code talks to the > MetaStore > > > > > > directly, outside of the data produced by the Resolver. > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think Polaris offers any explicit mechanisms (ATM) to > ensure > > > > > > consistency between these reads and subsequent writes. > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as JDBC goes, running an overarching Transaction across > all > > > > reads > > > > > > and writes in the same request, at the SERIALIZABLE isolation > level > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > backing RDBMS could solve the problem, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, such a transaction might be long to accommodate calls > made by > > > > > > Polaris to external storage, etc. However, is that a problem? I > think > > > > the > > > > > > alternative is for the JDBC Persistence impl. to "manually" > track all > > > > > reads > > > > > > under the same request and redo them in the small transaction > that > > > > > persists > > > > > > the writes. This will also add RDBMS overhead and require complex > > > code > > > > in > > > > > > Polaris to handle the data properly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tracking the request-wide transaction can be done only for JDBC > > > without > > > > > > leaking "transaction" concepts to the NoSQL Persistence, I think. > > > NoSQL > > > > > > will use other mechanisms to ensure read/write consistency. > > > > > > > > > > > > Connecting to Robert's email (a parallel branch in this > discussion), > > > > I'd > > > > > > like to propose this approach: > > > > > > > > > > > > * Each request establishes a "Data Context" > > > > > > - In JDBC the Data Context corresponds to a JDBC Connection + > Tx > > > > > > - In NoSQL the Data Context tracks one or more reference hashes > > > > > > * All Persistence access in the same request goes through the > same > > > Data > > > > > > Context > > > > > > * All Persistence changes are committed once at the end of the > > > request > > > > > > - Not all changes have to be globally atomic. For example, > changes > > > in > > > > > > Catalogs A and B do not have to be atomic with respect to each > other. > > > > We > > > > > > can go deeper into this later. This is relevant to NoSQL. > > > > > > - Transactional backends like JDBC can, of course, choose to > make > > > all > > > > > > changes globally atomic. > > > > > > * A commit can fail in two main ways: > > > > > > - A retriable failure like an optimistic lock error or Tx > > > > > serializability > > > > > > error > > > > > > - A non-triable logical error (e.g. entity not found) > > > > > > * On a retriable error the whole request is re-attempted (as if > > > > > resubmitted > > > > > > by a client) a few times (configurable timeout). > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 12:44 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think Robert has a good point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the atomicity guarantee lives only in BasePersistence, then > the > > > > > > > manager contract can't tell a caller whether the state it read > for > > > > > > > validation/authorization/credential-vending is the same state > that > > > > > > > eventually commits. That's the actual bug class behind the JDBC > > > > > > > symptoms (not any single operation being non-atomic, but the > > > contract > > > > > > > being silent about it. Every operation-specific fix (like > #4939, > > > > #5035 > > > > > > > or #5095) re-answers this question locally and it keeps > recurring. > > > So > > > > > > > the deliverable should start with a written consistency > contract at > > > > > > > the manager level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure migrating everyone to > > > TransactionalMetaStoreManagerImpl > > > > > > > is a good idea. It would tie the logical change set to a DB > > > > > > > transaction spanning the REST request. It means: > > > > > > > - it holds a durable transaction open across slow external work > > > > > > > (credential vending, OPA, Ranger, ...) > > > > > > > - it doesn't map to NoSQL > > > > > > > - It wraps single-row updates in runWiithinTransaction, which > is a > > > > > > overhead > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I think the transactional manager isn't a portable target. > It's > > > > > > > "only" one backend's strategy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think Privthi's approach is right. A backend-agnostic > change-set > > > > > > > primitive with a documented fallback is the correct shape. > There is > > > > > > > one caveat: without carrying the original entitiy (not just > the new > > > > > > > one) the change set can't express optimistic concurrency. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose the following multi-steps approach: > > > > > > > 1. We write the manager-level consistency contract as Robert > asked. > > > > It > > > > > > > should include the explicit statement that a logical change > set is > > > > not > > > > > > > a request-scope DB transaction. > > > > > > > 2. We make Compare And Swap (optimistic-concurrency pattern) > > > baseline > > > > > > > first-class in EntityMutation before merging the SPI > > > > > > > 3. Then we refactor createCatalog/dropEntity/renameEntity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 5:08 PM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yufei's clarification about where the atomicity guarantee is > > > > defined > > > > > > > seems > > > > > > > > important. > > > > > > > > If it is a property of the lower-level BasePersistence > contract > > > > > rather > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > the general PolarisMetaStoreManager contract, the general > > > contract > > > > > does > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > tell callers whether the state used for validation, > > > authorization, > > > > or > > > > > > > > credential vending is consistent with the change that > eventually > > > > > > commits. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The current PRs suggest that operation-specific multi-object > > > > methods > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > fix individual cases, while leaving the same contract > question to > > > > > recur > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > each new case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also avoid defining a logical change set as a > database > > > > > > > transaction > > > > > > > > around an entire REST request. > > > > > > > > That would tie the contract to the backend and database, and > > > could > > > > > keep > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > durable attempt open across slow external work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So is the choice really between the two current manager > > > > > > implementations, > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > do we first need to revisit the boundary and guarantees > exposed > > > to > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > callers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 10:21 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yufei, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the link. I stand corrected. The "one atomic > change > > > > per > > > > > > > method" > > > > > > > > > contract as defined in javadoc does apply only to > > > BasePersistence > > > > > > > > > and AtomicOperationMetaStoreManager (which delegates to > > > > > > > BasePersistence). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that all non-test Persistence implementations in the > > > Polaris > > > > > > > codebase > > > > > > > > > extend those classes (which is probably why I was confused > > > about > > > > > > > atomicity > > > > > > > > > expectations). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, this creates a gap in the Persistence SPI > > > specification. > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > other PolarisMetaStoreManager implementations do not have > to > > > > comply > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > this principle, it will create a conceptual difficulty at > call > > > > > sites. > > > > > > > How > > > > > > > > > can PolarisMetaStoreManager callers reason about > consistency > > > and > > > > > > > durability > > > > > > > > > behaviours in general? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we need to address that as part of this > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 9:29 PM Yufei Gu < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The MetaStore SPI is currently defined with the idea > that > > > one > > > > > > > method > > > > > > > > > call > > > > > > > > > > means one atomic change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the "MetaStore SPI" refers to the interface > > > > > > > PolarisMetaStoreManager, I > > > > > > > > > > don't think we've ever state each method to be atomic. > We did > > > > > > clarify > > > > > > > > > > atomicity[1] in the interface BasePersistence though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/e9039e12003a13e783b5130a3d30d30cfe78d93c/polaris-core/src/main/java/org/apache/polaris/core/persistence/BasePersistence.java#L48 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 11:27 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yufei, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that JDBC transactions must be handled more > > > > explicitly. > > > > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that simply moving to > > > > > > > TransactionalMetaStoreManagerImpl is > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The MetaStore SPI is currently defined with the idea > that > > > one > > > > > > > method > > > > > > > > > call > > > > > > > > > > > means one atomic change [1]. The "transactional" > MetaStore > > > > > impl. > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > but a > > > > > > > > > > > sub-case of that. It cannot alter the high-level > contract. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We could add SPI methods having multiple object > parameters > > > to > > > > > > > represent > > > > > > > > > > > grouped changes, but I am not sure it will be a sound > > > design. > > > > > > This > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > bloat the interface surfaces and require extra impl. > effort > > > > for > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > > backend type. More importantly, adding multi-arg change > > > > methods > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > won't > > > > > > > > > > > address the problem of reads being consistent with > writes, > > > > > > because > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > > method call will still be independent regarding the > data > > > > stored > > > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > database. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tend to think we need to introduce a "change set" or > > > > "atomic > > > > > > > batch" > > > > > > > > > > > concept to core Persistence and associate each REST API > > > > request > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > such change set, which will be committed (or rolled > back) > > > at > > > > > the > > > > > > > end of > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > request. I believe Ayush mentioned a similar concept > in PR > > > > 4939 > > > > > > > [2]. In > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC each change set will naturally be associated with > an > > > > RDBMS > > > > > > > > > > > transaction. In NoSQL persistence, each atomic change > set > > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > associated with one CAS operation on the underlying > > > database. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/rf5orxs815zs4h64p4rwp03q3pbgxb5r > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4939#discussion_r3575719158 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 1:12 PM Yufei Gu < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for raising this, Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These are valid concerns, and they were already > > > recognized > > > > > when > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > introduced JDBC persistence to Polaris. At that > time, we > > > > > chose > > > > > > > to use > > > > > > > > > > > > AtomicOperationMetaStoreManager for the JDBC due to > the > > > > > > > simplicity. I > > > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > > most of the issues mentioned here can already be > > > addressed > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > TransactionalMetaStoreManagerImpl. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, rename is already wrapped in a > transaction > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > TransactionalMetaStoreManagerImpl [1]. Similarly, > catalog > > > > > > > creation, > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > involves reading and creating multiple objects, is > also > > > > > > executed > > > > > > > > > > within a > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction [2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see two possible directions: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Modify AtomicOperationMetaStoreManager together > with > > > the > > > > > > > > > persistence > > > > > > > > > > > > backends (such as JDBC) to provide the required > > > > > consistency > > > > > > > > > > guarantees > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > specific operations, similar to what > > > > > > > > > > TransactionalMetaStoreManagerImpl > > > > > > > > > > > > does. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Migrate the persistence backends (such as JDBC) > to use > > > > > > > > > > > > TransactionalMetaStoreManagerImpl directly. We may > > > have > > > > to > > > > > > > deal > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > transactional semantic mismatches across different > > > > > > persistence > > > > > > > > > > > backends. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, we would likely avoid using JDBC's > > > > > > > > > > `runWithinTransaction` > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > single row updates, which adds additional > overhead and > > > > > > > complexity > > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > > benefits. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > References: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/5731c5cbee02257d1f21f78ca3befcd639b100a3/polaris-core/src/main/java/org/apache/polaris/core/persistence/transactional/TransactionalMetaStoreManagerImpl.java#L1286 > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/5731c5cbee02257d1f21f78ca3befcd639b100a3/polaris-core/src/main/java/org/apache/polaris/core/persistence/transactional/TransactionalMetaStoreManagerImpl.java#L965 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 8:22 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ayush and Prithvi recently contributed a couple of > > > > > > interesting > > > > > > > PRs: > > > > > > > > > > > > > [4939], [5035]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like people are starting to encounter > > > > consistency > > > > > > > issues > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC persistence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The PRs provide valuable insight into the > underlying > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > They > > > > > > > > > > offer > > > > > > > > > > > > > incremental fixes that can work. However, I > believe it > > > is > > > > > > time > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > Polaris community to review and improve this area > of > > > the > > > > > > > codebase > > > > > > > > > > > > > holistically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By this, I mean finding a solution that can be > applied > > > to > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > persistence backends (in-memory, JDBC, NoSQL) and > > > > addresses > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > aspects: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Supporting concurrent and consistent changes > where > > > the > > > > > > > service > > > > > > > > > > reads > > > > > > > > > > > > > and validates current catalog state, then > commits a > > > > > change > > > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > name clashes during renames). > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Supporting consistent but independent changes to > RBAC > > > > > > grants > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > MetaStore entities. This independence is needed > to > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > > > > external authorizers like OPA and Ranger. > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Supporting atomic changes across multiple similar > > > > > entities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Supporting authorization-based filtering of list > > > > > operations > > > > > > > (cf. > > > > > > > > > > > > > [4831]). > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Supporting credential-vending decisions that are > > > rooted > > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > exact state of the catalog. > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Supporting server-side retries for transient > > > > persistence > > > > > > > failures > > > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g. RDBMS Tx serializability failures). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please share your comments and ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [4831] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4831 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [4939] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4939 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [5035] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5035 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
