+1 (non-binding). I have reviewed the spec and I think it is ready to go. On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 1:17 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 1:09 PM Russell Spitzer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 (binding) - I have a few minor comments on the text itself but I think >> all the substance is correct. >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 12:37 PM Andrei Tserakhau via dev < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 8:22 PM huaxin gao <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> I'd like to start a vote to add table constraints to the Iceberg v4 >>>> table spec: >>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/17822 >>>> >>>> Summary of the change: >>>> >>>> - Adds three constraint types: `check`, `unique`, and `primary-key` >>>> - Constraint definitions are stored in table metadata, with an >>>> `enforced` flag that controls whether writers must verify the rows they >>>> add >>>> or modify >>>> - Each snapshot records the status of each constraint in >>>> `constraint-statuses`: `validated`, `valid`, `invalid`, or `unvalidated` >>>> - A `primary-key` constraint replaces identifier field IDs in v4. >>>> When a table is upgraded to v4, its identifier fields are converted to a >>>> `primary-key` constraint that is not enforced >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks to everyone who reviewed the PR and joined the constraint syncs. >>>> >>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >>>> >>>> [ ] +1 Add table constraints to the v4 spec >>>> [ ] +0 >>>> [ ] -1 I have concerns because ... >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Huaxin >>>> >>>
