ajantha-bhat commented on code in PR #6975:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/6975#discussion_r1122644862
##########
core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/PartitionsTable.java:
##########
@@ -45,9 +45,14 @@ public class PartitionsTable extends BaseMetadataTable {
this.schema =
new Schema(
Types.NestedField.required(1, "partition",
Partitioning.partitionType(table)),
- Types.NestedField.required(2, "record_count",
Types.LongType.get()),
- Types.NestedField.required(3, "file_count",
Types.IntegerType.get()),
- Types.NestedField.required(4, "spec_id", Types.IntegerType.get()));
+ Types.NestedField.required(4, "spec_id", Types.IntegerType.get()),
Review Comment:
we have discussed this here
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/6661#discussion_r1087858684
I think @RussellSpitzer and @szehon-ho agree that there is no impact from
column re-ordering.
Spec-id in the middle really looks odd when we add other counters. I don't
want to change the field id and break the compatibility.
--
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]
