iting0321 commented on PR #4827: URL: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4827#issuecomment-4768677997
> I think this persistence piece, together with #4826, is too early to merge as-is. > > The concern is not implementation quality, but commit point. Once we add the lineage persistence model and JDBC schema, changes to the lineage identity model, edge replacement semantics, column-lineage representation, or storage placement become schema/migration changes for users. That makes this much harder to revise than ordinary internal Java code. > > The dev@ discussion still has open questions around at least: > > * what exact query/use case the reduced local graph is supposed to support; > * whether “latest” edge replacement is the right semantic model; > * whether lineage persistence must be tied to the same JDBC/metastore schema; > * whether the REST/API and persistence pieces should be optional modules; > * what backend capability contract non-JDBC implementations are expected to satisfy. > > I think we should settle those points before merging the persistence SPI/schema work. It is fine to keep iterating on the PR, but I would not treat it as merge-ready yet. Hi @snazy , thanks for clarifying. I understand your concern about committing to the persistence model and schema before the remaining design questions are resolved. I’ll continue following the dev@ discussion and update the PR based on the resulting consensus. -- 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]
