I followed up with Steven offline and with the updates I'm changing my vote
to a +1.

Thanks Steven!

On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 12:49 PM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote:

> -1 (for now)
>
> Steven, I'm not sure we've had enough discussion on this and what we're
> actually trying to solve for.  The PR looks like we're just updating the
> description, but there's really no functional change here.
>
> There's actually a more significant discrepancy in that the
> create/rename/register view can only return a ViewAlreadyExistsError even
> if it's a table and create/rename/register Table can only return a
> TableAlreadyExistsError even if it's a view.
>
> I think clarifying the description doesn't really address this issue and
> functionally we've strictly defined two specific return types that are
> aligned with their specific load routes, but identifier uniqueness spans
> multiple.
>
> I also don't know what else may collide (functions, indexes, etc.). Some
> of this might be engine specific.
>
> I just don't feel like this is the right way to address it (though I could
> be convinced otherwise if there something specific we need to solve in the
> near term).
>
> -Dan
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 11:09 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> The REST spec currently defines six write operations that return a 409
>> Conflict when an identifier already exists. However, the descriptions
>> of what constitutes a conflict are inconsistent:
>>
>>    - Enforcing cross-type uniqueness (table or view):
>>       - renameTable, renameView, registerView say: *"already exists as a
>>       table or view"*
>>    - Only enforcing within the same type (table or view only):
>>       - createTable, registerTable, createView say: *"table already
>>       exists"* / *"view already exists"*
>>
>>
>> I'd like to propose a vote on a small clarification in the REST spec to
>> apply the same wording of "*The identifier already* *exists as a table
>> or view*" across all 6 endpoints.
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15691/changes
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steven
>>
>>
>>
>>

Reply via email to