+1 (non-binding) Thanks
On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 11:13 AM Russell Spitzer <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 1:07 PM Hongyue Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Thanks Huaxin! >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 11:03 Gianluca Graziadei < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding ) >>> >>> The asymmetric cost argument is the decisive factor for me. >>> >>> An equality delete allows the writer to offload work onto every >>> subsequent read, and this deferred cost is neither bounded nor visible to >>> the party that generated it. Deletion vectors make that cost explicit and >>> ensure it is paid only once. >>> >>> I would also like to highlight point 3, which I think is underrated: >>> making the upgrade metadata-only decouples V4 adoption from delete file >>> migration. Users can move to V4 on their own timeline and convert equality >>> deletes as a background maintenance task. Coupling the two would have >>> turned V4 adoption into a weeks-long operational project for large tables. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Gianluca >>> >>> Il giorno gio 13 ago 2026 alle ore 19:57 Neelesh Salian < >>> [email protected]> ha scritto: >>> >>>> +1 (non binding) Thank you Huaxin. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 19:07 huaxin gao <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Following the discussion thread "[DISCUSS] Deprecate Equality Deletes >>>>> in >>>>> Iceberg V4" [1], I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for >>>>> the >>>>> V4 table spec. >>>>> >>>>> Proposal >>>>> -------- >>>>> 1. Writing new equality deletes is forbidden for V4 tables: the V4 >>>>> metadata >>>>> will not define equality deletes as an allowed entry type. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Reading equality deletes remains supported in the reference >>>>> implementation for backward compatibility, both for existing V2/V3 >>>>> tables and for equality deletes carried over into upgraded V4 >>>>> tables. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Upgrading a V2/V3 table to V4 is metadata-only (no synchronous >>>>> rewrite >>>>> of data or delete files). Existing equality deletes remain in >>>>> carried- >>>>> over V2/V3 delete manifests; converting them to deletion vectors is >>>>> a >>>>> separate, optional maintenance action. >>>>> >>>>> Rationale >>>>> --------- >>>>> Equality deletes impose an asymmetric cost paid on every read, >>>>> complicate >>>>> the format, and block features such as CDC, row lineage, and >>>>> incremental >>>>> index/materialized-view maintenance. Deletion vectors make deletion a >>>>> flat, >>>>> one-time cost, and the Flink ConvertEqualityDeletes work demonstrates a >>>>> viable replacement path, so we do not need the full replacement >>>>> completed >>>>> before forbidding new equality deletes in V4. >>>>> >>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 Forbid writing equality deletes in V4 >>>>> [ ] +0 >>>>> [ ] -1 Do not forbid (please explain) >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/ks01jpv40qjlvz4yop5tlqv4x5oxbwy6 >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.apache.org/thread/ks01jpv40qjlvz4yop5tlqv4x5oxbwy6__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!vsYT4Z_ihSMhUpgRXcXgEUbArKyPoG3WKwSCXmmMtC_0Tg3ICMgaSOoq7WzaKsMaK4-c_vXUCsbXEVhdw7RV0di7e8S-yLUE$> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Huaxin >>>>> >>>>
