+1 binding Thanks Steven for the change. Hopefully there is no downstream clients building logic based on the error message.
Yufei On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 12:22 PM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 binding > > Thanks Steven! > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 11:54 AM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
