yeah, I meant PR15691. Thanks for catching the wrong url, Kevin! On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 10:23 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just to clarify, I think you meant > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15691 which is now merged. > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 9:57 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>> >>>>
