This is a correctness issue, but it is not a new regression; the same issue already exists in 1.10. The PR description lists Trino, Impala, Comet, and iceberg-rust as affected readers. I wouldn’t call it a hard blocker for 1.11.0 because it is a pre-existing problem.
Thanks, Huaxin On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 8:44 PM Aihua Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > Huaxin, how critical is this one? The bug has been reported for a while > and it's still being worked on. Can you add to the milestone 1.11.0 if it's > a blocker so we can track? > > One more PR to consider: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15470 fixes >> a correctness issue in rewriteTablePath, where manifests can record >> stale file_size_in_bytes values for rewritten position delete files. We >> probably want to include this fix in 1.11 too. > > > On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 7:33 PM Aihua Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If it’s needed, I will wait for it. Thanks for working on them. >> >> On May 12, 2026, at 7:17 PM, Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> 3 of the PRs have been merged. Thank you Huaxin for the review. I merged >> it since it was mostly clean backports and only targets spark 3.4. >> The last PR is pending CI and also a clean backport, >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16311 >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 6:52 PM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'll take a look at https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15470 >>> >>> Here's the Spark 3.4 PRs. I only backported PRs with relevant code >>> changes: >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16306 (Backport of #14483 + >>> #14497) >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16307 (Backport of #15683 + >>> #16284) >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16308 (Backport of #15832) >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16311 (Backport of #15992) This >>> one needs to rebase #16307 above >>> >>> They are mostly clean backports, some with minimal change. The first 3 >>> already passed CI. >>> I would like to have these in. But will defer to Aihua (RM) for the >>> final call. >>> >>> Best, >>> Kevin Liu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 6:39 PM Manu Zhang <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Aihua, >>>> >>>> Since we plan to drop Spark 3.4 after 1.11.0, let's get the back-port >>>> PRs in. Otherwise, it will be left in a broken state. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Manu >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 9:16 AM Aihua Xu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks everyone for driving these blockers to closure. >>>>> >>>>> Kevin, since this isn’t blocking and Spark 3.4 is deprecated, I’d like >>>>> to go ahead and cut the next release candidate tonight so we can move >>>>> forward—unless anyone disagrees. If we end up needing another RC, we can >>>>> consider adding them in. What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 4:48 PM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ajay's email was stuck in webmod, i just unblocked it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks like all the issues in this email chain have been resolved. >>>>>> - first row ID https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16263 >>>>>> - analyticscore https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16258 >>>>>> - SerializableFileIOWithSize >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16284 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks everyone for contributing to the fix! >>>>>> >>>>>> The 1.11.0 milestone is 100% complete at this time, >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/59 >>>>>> >>>>>> One _last_ thing, I went over the potential feature parity gap >>>>>> between the four different Spark versions we currently support. It looks >>>>>> like there are a couple of PRs that can be backported to Spark 3.4 but >>>>>> haven't been. Since this is the last release that supports Spark 3.4, I'd >>>>>> like to backport them and close the parity gap. This is completely >>>>>> optional >>>>>> since we've already marked Spark 3.4 as deprecated, but I think it's a >>>>>> good >>>>>> gesture for its final release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Kevin Liu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 3:57 PM Ajay Yadav <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to report a performance regression we've identified in >>>>>>> Spark queries on Iceberg tables stored in cloud storage (tested with >>>>>>> GCS), >>>>>>> which I believe should be addressed in the 1.11.0 release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current SerializableFileIOWithSize drops file length, causing >>>>>>> performance regression due to excessive metadata calls in Cloud Storage: >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/ssues/16283. The fix overrides >>>>>>> InputFile newInputFile(String path, long length) to preserve file >>>>>>> length and avoid unwanted metadata calls >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16284 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2026/05/08 15:27:05 Péter Váry wrote: >>>>>>> > Just to clarify: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The following PRs are already merged to 1.11.0: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > - https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14297 - Spark: >>>>>>> Support writing >>>>>>> > shredded variant in Iceberg-Spark >>>>>>> > - https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15512 - Spark: fix >>>>>>> delete from >>>>>>> > branch for canDeleteWhere where it does not resolve to the >>>>>>> correct branch - >>>>>>> > WAP fix >>>>>>> > - https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15475 - Flink: Add >>>>>>> Nanosecond >>>>>>> > Precision Support for Flink-Iceberg Integration >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The missing ones are the ones backporting those to other engine >>>>>>> versions: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > - For: 14297 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14297>: >>>>>>> > - 16241 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16241> - >>>>>>> Backport for >>>>>>> > variant shredding in Spark 4.0 >>>>>>> > - For: 15512 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15512>: >>>>>>> > - 16245 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16245> - >>>>>>> Spark: >>>>>>> > backport PR #15512 to v3.4, v3.5, v4.0 for WAP branch >>>>>>> delete fix >>>>>>> > - For: 15475 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15475>: >>>>>>> > - #16183 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16183>, >>>>>>> #16239 >>>>>>> > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16239>, #16240 >>>>>>> > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16240> - Backport >>>>>>> for Nano >>>>>>> > timestamps for Flink 2.0/1.20 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > So the PRs needed on 1.11.0 are: >>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16241 >>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16245 >>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16183 >>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16239 >>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16240 >>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16186 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Aihua Xu <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. máj. 8., P, >>>>>>> 17:13): >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > Thank you all for the feedback and for verifying the release >>>>>>> candidate. >>>>>>> > > Based on the issues identified above, we will include the >>>>>>> following fixes >>>>>>> > > and cut RC2 with a new vote: >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14297 >>>>>>> > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15512 >>>>>>> > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15475 >>>>>>> > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16186 >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Please let me know if you have any questions or identified >>>>>>> additional >>>>>>> > > issues. >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Thanks, >>>>>>> > > Aihua >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 10:09 PM Aihua Xu <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >> I also looked into this. There is a configuration >>>>>>> > >> gcs.analytics-core.enabled to enable/disable GCS Analytics >>>>>>> Core. The >>>>>>> > >> current implementation always requires runtime dependency of >>>>>>> GCS Analytics >>>>>>> > >> Core even if the configuration is off. Ideally we can lazy load >>>>>>> such >>>>>>> > >> dependency so the dependency is only required when the feature >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> > >> explicitly enabled. But since GCP is likely to enable GCS >>>>>>> Analytics Core by >>>>>>> > >> default, I feel it's reasonable for downstream projects using >>>>>>> non-bundle >>>>>>> > >> jars to add this dependency. >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 6:54 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >>> Looked a little more. >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> So Iceberg's cloud modules consistently use compileOnly for >>>>>>> vendor SDKs >>>>>>> > >>> and rely on either the bundle artifact or downstream >>>>>>> coordination for >>>>>>> > >>> runtime. So, both changes are expected for downstream >>>>>>> consumers using the >>>>>>> > >>> non-bundle jars. Maybe we don't need to change anything. >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> iceberg-gcp module >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> compileOnly platform(libs.google.libraries.bom) >>>>>>> > >>> compileOnly "com.google.cloud:google-cloud-storage" >>>>>>> > >>> compileOnly "com.google.cloud:google-cloud-kms" >>>>>>> > >>> compileOnly(libs.gcs.analytics.core) >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 6:16 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>>> Yuya, thanks for reporting the discovery. >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> Azure: I approved your PR and can merge it soon: >>>>>>> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16186 >>>>>>> > >>>> GCP: the new dependency is marked as compileOnly in PR 14333 >>>>>>> > >>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14333>, as it is an >>>>>>> opt-in >>>>>>> > >>>> feature. we need to either change the dep to implementation >>>>>>> or update the >>>>>>> > >>>> code similar to the Azure fix above. >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 4:07 PM Yuya Ebihara < >>>>>>> > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> Hi Aihua, >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for leading the release! >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> Just a quick reminder about two dependency-related items >>>>>>> from a >>>>>>> > >>>>> downstream perspective: >>>>>>> > >>>>> * Azure module users will require >>>>>>> azure-security-keyvault-keys, even >>>>>>> > >>>>> when table encryption is not used, as noted in >>>>>>> > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16186 >>>>>>> > >>>>> * GCS module users will require gcs-analytics-core >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> I ran into CI failures with 1.11.0 in Trino because the >>>>>>> project does >>>>>>> > >>>>> not use the azure-bundle or gcp-bundle modules. >>>>>>> > >>>>> The CI passed once we explicitly added these two >>>>>>> dependencies. >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> > >>>>> Yuya Ebihara >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 4:58 AM Péter Váry <[email protected]> >>>>>>> > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> First of all, thanks to everyone for the effort put into >>>>>>> preparing >>>>>>> > >>>>>> this release! >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> I would like to highlight that RC1 is built from a branch >>>>>>> where the >>>>>>> > >>>>>> following features have not been backported to all engine >>>>>>> versions: >>>>>>> > >>>>>> - Spark: Support writing shredded variant in Iceberg-Spark ( >>>>>>> > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14297) - Available >>>>>>> in Spark >>>>>>> > >>>>>> 4.1, but not in Spark 4.0 >>>>>>> > >>>>>> - Spark: fix delete from branch for canDeleteWhere where it >>>>>>> does not >>>>>>> > >>>>>> resolve to the correct branch ( >>>>>>> > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15512) - Available >>>>>>> in Spark >>>>>>> > >>>>>> 4.1, but not in Spark 4.0, 3.5, or 3.4 >>>>>>> > >>>>>> - Flink: Add Nanosecond Precision Support for Flink-Iceberg >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Integration (https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15475) >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Available in Flink 2.1, but not in Flink 2.0 or 1.20 >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> It is up to the community to decide whether these missing >>>>>>> backports >>>>>>> > >>>>>> should be considered release blockers. Most of the >>>>>>> corresponding PRs have >>>>>>> > >>>>>> already been merged to main (except #15512), and including >>>>>>> them in the >>>>>>> > >>>>>> release should be relatively straightforward. >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> From my perspective, I would prefer not to release with >>>>>>> these gaps. >>>>>>> > >>>>>> That said, I understand the urgency and the need for a >>>>>>> release, and I am >>>>>>> > >>>>>> happy to go with the community’s decision. >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Aihua Xu <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. máj. >>>>>>> 7., Cs, >>>>>>> > >>>>>> 18:26): >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I propose that we release the following RC as the official >>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Iceberg 1.11.0 release. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The commit ID is 0f657edf12dc29f8487a679bfdd4210e9588d014 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * This corresponds to the tag: apache-iceberg-1.11.0-rc1 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/commits/apache-iceberg-1.11.0-rc1 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/tree/0f657edf12dc29f8487a679bfdd4210e9588d014 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The release tarball, signature, and checksums are here: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/iceberg/apache-iceberg-1.11.0-rc1 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You can find the KEYS file here: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * https://downloads.apache.org/iceberg/KEYS >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Convenience binary artifacts are staged on Nexus. The Maven >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> repository URL is: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheiceberg-1278/ >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please download, verify, and test. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Instructions for verifying a release can be found here: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> https://iceberg.apache.org/how-to-release/#how-to-verify-a-release >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this as Apache Iceberg 1.11.0 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [ ] +0 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this because... >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Only PMC members have binding votes, but other community >>>>>>> members are >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> encouraged to cast >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> non-binding votes. This vote will pass if there are 3 >>>>>>> binding +1 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> votes and more binding >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1 votes than -1 votes. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>
