I understand the problem we are trying to solve here. But the actual proposed solution is unclear to me. The proposal seems lack some details in the actual design/solution.
How do the proposed snapshot read and write APIs differ from the current APIs? I can't tell the difference. > Once defined, this interface could be implemented by various backing stores, such as another file or even a Catalog. To support offloading, we probably have to update the table metadata in the table spec <https://iceberg.apache.org/spec/#table-metadata-fields>. Does this depend on making metadata.json file optional? Or is this limited to just externalizing the snapshot list? On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 2:53 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Innocent > > Maybe it's a kind of redundant with the V4 initiative ? > What are your thoughts on this? > > Thanks! > > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 6:44 AM Innocent Djiofack <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello Everyone, >> >> My name is Innocent and I have enjoyed working on the apache Iceberg >> project so far and have learned a lot from people in the group. >> I wanted to follow up on a concern raised by Anton around the growing >> size of metadata.json and the problems it brings. Before going ahead and >> doing the implementation work, I wanted to share the high level thinking >> with the community and get feedback. You will find the link to the proposal >> here >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xpzpsA9BGSkxo58yUhSdDQaSu7_ITQLFmGarEOyM8P0/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.7g59t9p9o1xi> >> I >> would appreciate comments and feedback on it. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> >> *DJIOFACK INNOCENT* >> *"Be better than the day before!" -* >> *+1 404 751 8024* >> >
