rshkv commented on code in PR #863:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/pull/863#discussion_r1901745235
##########
crates/iceberg/src/metadata_scan.rs:
##########
@@ -128,6 +140,84 @@ impl<'a> SnapshotsTable<'a> {
}
}
+/// Entries table containing the manifest file's entries.
+///
+/// The table has one row for each manifest file entry in the current
snapshot's manifest list file.
+/// For reference, see the Java implementation of [`ManifestEntry`][1].
+///
+/// [1]:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/apache-iceberg-1.7.1/core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/ManifestEntry.java
+pub struct EntriesTable<'a> {
+ table: &'a Table,
+}
+
+impl<'a> EntriesTable<'a> {
+ /// Get the schema for the manifest entries table.
+ pub fn schema(&self) -> Schema {
Review Comment:
@liurenjie1024, would you mind saying more. I'm happy to go with either but
not sure why.
Even if there's no consumer of `schema()` currently, I follow @xxchan's
argument's of the reader likely wanting an Arrow schema. Another benefit is
that we can use the schema ourselves when constructing scans. I'm not sure what
a consumer would do with an Iceberg schema (except maybe convert to Arrow).
As alternative to having an Arrow or Iceberg schema, we could also _not_
have a public `schema()`?
--
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
