-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 270
Check write snapshot compatibility #1678
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
Let me know if anyone is interested in contributing this, otherwise I'll take a stab at it myself 🤗 |
hey @Fokko, i'd be interested in contributing this if you haven't started already! |
@kaushiksrini I haven't feel free to pick this up 👍 |
@kaushiksrini Gentle ping, updates on this? I think a lot of folks would benefit from having this. If you don't have the time, I'm also happy to take a stab at it |
Hey @Fokko, actively working on this - should have a PR out soon. Had a few questions:
Thanks! |
Thanks @kaushiksrini for picking this up. My apologies, I missed this comment:
Looking at the PR, you already found this :)
I don't think we have this one, can add it to |
Feature Request / Improvement
Java and Python have a different approach here. I don't have all the historical context, but prior to Iceberg V2 tables, there was no such thing as operations:
I think this is a good thing to validate against.
This should happen in the
_commit
method of the_SnapshotProducer
. Similar to Java:startingSnapshotId
to thecurrent-snapshot-id
if any snapshots were added. If this is the case, we want to_validate()
if there are any conflicts.There's also a small section on conflict resolution.
Let's only do the very simple cases at first, so we can add ones one by one to keep the PR within reasonable size.
Once we have this in place, we can also do automatic retries: #269
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: