Skip to content

feat: support update for memory catalog#1002

Closed
ZENOTME wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
ZENOTME:memory_catalog_update
Closed

feat: support update for memory catalog#1002
ZENOTME wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
ZENOTME:memory_catalog_update

Conversation

@ZENOTME

@ZENOTME ZENOTME commented Feb 24, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

To add runnable update example #999, we should support update forthe memory catalog first.

@ZENOTME ZENOTME force-pushed the memory_catalog_update branch from 35ac16d to 3c14f04 Compare February 24, 2025 12:12
@ZENOTME

ZENOTME commented Feb 24, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

cc @Xuanwo @liurenjie1024 @fqaiser94

@jonathanc-n jonathanc-n left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add TODO for support for atomic swap to new metadata file. We can look to implement for other catalogs after merge.

}
}

fn new_metadata_location(&self, location: &str) -> String {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should include version increment, and be in the format as defined in the spec.

@liurenjie1024 liurenjie1024 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @ZENOTME for this pr. The reason we don't add update table support before is that currently the table transaction api is not complete yet, and we should not add this in catalog in such a way.

@ZENOTME

ZENOTME commented Mar 6, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks @ZENOTME for this pr. The reason we don't add update table support before is that currently the table transaction api is not complete yet, and we should not add this in catalog in such a way.

Hi @liurenjie1024, I'm confused why we don't add update table support before transaction api is not complete yet. Which transaction API should we support first?🤔 According to my understanding, the update table implementation of the catalog is decoupled with the transaction API.

I notice that for the other catalog, except RestCatalog. Their update behaviour based on the MetastoreCatalog. MetastoreCatalog will provide a unified way to write metadata file. Is your mean is that we should complete MetasoreCatalog first?

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 30 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@iceberg.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the stale label Feb 26, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Mar 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This pull request has been closed due to lack of activity. This is not a judgement on the merit of the PR in any way. It is just a way of keeping the PR queue manageable. If you think that is incorrect, or the pull request requires review, you can revive the PR at any time.

@github-actions github-actions Bot closed this Mar 5, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants