Revanth14 commented on issue #1178: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-go/issues/1178#issuecomment-5945603053
**Status: all phases merged and shipped in v0.7.0** Remote planning is available through `table.WithScanPlanningMode(table.ScanPlanningRemote | table.ScanPlanningAuto)`. Local planning is still the default. | Phase | PRs | |---|---| | 0: Capability discovery | #1174, #1324 | | 1: Wire types and task decoding | #1213, #1324, #1477, #1492 | | 2: Expression codec | #1212 (plus #1609, #1679, and the nested-name fix in #2019) | | 3: Client methods and poller | #1324, #1469 | | 4: `ScanPlanner` seam | #1213, #1477 | | 5: Scanner delegation | #1857 (plus #1959, #1803, #1944, #2027) | | 6: Fake server, parity and Java integration | #1494, #1505, #1878, #2019 (closes #1499 and #1500) | | 7: Retries, telemetry and docs | #2020 | | 8: Distributed codec | Still parked. Most of it is already covered by #1075 and the residual extension in #1492. | #829 and #589 are already closed, so the Phase 7 step to update them doesn't apply. Follow-ups still being tracked: #2079 (affects plan-scoped IO), #1880 (waiting on a versioned REST fixture image), plus Java end-to-end scanner coverage and the parity-test follow-ups parked from #2019/#2020. A few scope decisions are being settled before closing this epic. 1. **Server `scan-planning-mode` directive.** Java gives the server's value precedence over the client's and fails if `server` is required but the plan endpoint isn't advertised (`RESTSessionCatalog.restTableForScanPlanning`). We currently ignore the directive, and the README documents that. Should we match Java, or keep the documented divergence? #2094 exposes the directive on `Table` but doesn't enforce it. 2. **Incremental remote scans.** `start-snapshot-id`/`end-snapshot-id` aren't implemented, and incremental append and changelog scans return an error in remote mode. Java's `RESTTable` only overrides `newScan()`, so Java's incremental scans plan locally as well. Should this be a follow-up issue, or out of scope? 3. **CLI adoption.** This is more than adding a flag: `files` walks manifests directly, and the maintenance commands need more than a normal scan. Should it be a follow-up issue, or out of scope? @laskoviymishka @zeroshade @rambleraptor @tanmayrauth @fallintoplace -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
