The vote passed with 11 +1s (6 binding and 5 non-binding) and no -1. I will merge the spec PR that fixes the inconsistent wording. https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15830
Thanks everyone for the review and vote. On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 7:24 AM huaxin gao <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 7:18 AM Russell Spitzer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 9:16 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 10:02 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > +1 (non-binding) >>> > >>> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 8:37 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner >>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > +1 >>> > > >>> > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 8:39 AM Péter Váry < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> +1 >>> > >> >>> > >> On Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 03:28 Neelesh Salian < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> +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 >>> >>
