amogh-jahagirdar commented on code in PR #10962:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10962#discussion_r1862410733


##########
core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/MergingSnapshotProducer.java:
##########
@@ -833,7 +833,17 @@ public List<ManifestFile> apply(TableMetadata base, 
Snapshot snapshot) {
         filterManager.filterManifests(
             SnapshotUtil.schemaFor(base, targetBranch()),
             snapshot != null ? snapshot.dataManifests(ops.io()) : null);
-    long minDataSequenceNumber =
+
+    long minNewFileSequenceNumber =

Review Comment:
   Took a look, @jasonf20 see my comment 
[here](https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11131/files#r1815710103) , the 
change to not opportunistically rewrite deletes in case of a manifest only 
having aged out deletes was actually intentional and I don't think we want to 
add that behavior back. Let me take a look to see how we can simplify the tests 
in this PR considering that manifests with only aged out deletes won't be 
rewritten opportunistically until some other changes prompt a rewrite of the 
manifest



-- 
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

Reply via email to