+1 (non-binding). Thanks Steven. On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 18:23 John Zhuge <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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 >
