JFinis opened a new issue, #9740: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/9740
### Apache Iceberg version 1.4.3 (latest release) ### Query engine None ### Please describe the bug 🐞 I'm referring to the definition of `field_summary`, which is as follows: optional | optional | 510 lower_bound | bytes [1] | Lower bound for the non-null, non-NaN values in the partition field, or null if all values are null or NaN [2] optional | optional | 511 upper_bound | bytes [1] | Upper bound for the non-null, non-NaN values in the partition field, or null if all values are null or NaN [2] The fields are `optional` and the semantics of optional fields is that any writer may decide to not write them for whatever reason it pleases. However, for these fields, null has a specific meaning (that there are no non-null, non-NaN values). With the current wording of the spec, a reader cannot rely on this meaning, as a writer could write null either because there are no non-null non-NaN values, or because it chooses not to write this field for other reasons. Mitigation: The spec should put an asterisk at the optional classification of the field and explain in a foot note that a writer is not allowed to just not write these fields, as null has a specific meaning here. Thus, the fields are something between required and optional. They are actually required with the null value having a specific semantics. -- 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.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
