jackye1995 commented on a change in pull request #4082:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/4082#discussion_r803308200
##########
File path: core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/TableMetadata.java
##########
@@ -725,6 +728,21 @@ private static SortOrder freshSortOrder(int orderId,
Schema schema, SortOrder so
return builder.build();
}
+ private Map<String, SnapshotRef> validateRefs(Map<String, SnapshotRef>
inputRefs) {
+ for (Map.Entry<String, SnapshotRef> refEntry : inputRefs.entrySet()) {
+ String refName = refEntry.getKey();
+ SnapshotRef ref = refEntry.getValue();
+ if (ref.snapshotId() == -1) {
+ Preconditions.checkArgument(refName.equals(SnapshotRef.MAIN_BRANCH),
+ "Snapshot ref %s refers to snapshot id -1. Only main can refer to
-1", refName);
Review comment:
> If you remove main then current-snapshot-id is -1 but we don't
actually have -1 in this map?
I remember we were thinking about deprecating `current-snapshot-id` after
the branch change, because `current-snapshot-id` should now be retrieved by
getting the snapshot ID of the main branch, and that could be -1 if not exist.
If we go with that route, we allow a `{"main": -1}` entry in the map and we can
deprecate `current-snapshot-id`. If we keep `current-snapshot-id`, then that
information of `{"main": -1}` is duplicate and we don't need to keep that.
Either way is fine to me, do you think any one of them has any particular
advantage?
--
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]
