JanKaul commented on PR #6551: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/6551#issuecomment-1376845383
If the materialized view spec is the main reason for this PR, I think we should wait with merging this PR until the materialized view spec is finalized. I would like to consider an alternative solution for referencing the associated view from the storage table. This might be off-topic but the following should give some context. The current design for materialized views uses a storage table and an associated view. In my opinion it would be a cleaner solution for users if only one of these objects appears in the catalog because logically the materialized view is also just one object. This way however, the uuid of the associated view cannot be used as a reference from the storage table, since it is not registered in the catalog. I therefore propose to use the view metadata location, which has the form `<version>-<random-uuid>.metadata.json`, as the reference to the associated view definition. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
