+1 (non-binding) On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 12:28 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- John Zhuge
