+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration scenarios. > > Thanks, > Alex > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister` > >>> endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is > >>> #16400. > >>> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a table > >>> from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata files. > >>> The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This requires > >>> a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata files > >>> should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table should > >>> be returned. > >>> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours, > >>> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . . > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . . > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Ryan
