jbonofre commented on PR #9487: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9487#issuecomment-1911560276
If we consider the atomic name between view and table is the most important to guarantee, then we should keep the current implementation with a single table. Using two tables would be possible using a third `LOCK` table (it's what I did in Apache ActiveMQ to guarantee primary/secondary brokers selection). By the way, I think the problem can already happen between `PROPERTIES` and `TABLE` as the namespaces are on different tables (even if it's not a problem, at JDBC level, it's possible). Migration is not a big deal (I already have the code ready doing `ALTER TABLE` after checking the columns using `conn.getDatabaseMetadata()`. My main concern is that "old clients" can see view as table. If we consider that's rare or not a big deal then we IMHO, due to view isolate and easy migration, I think having views in a separate table is a better option, assuming "name conflict" is acceptable. Thoughts ? -- 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: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@iceberg.apache.org
