jackye1995 opened a new issue, #7103: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/7103
### Feature Request / Improvement This is disabled today as noted in https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/7050#discussion_r1134707787 quote here: > I don't think this behavior is a blocker because it is strict, but I would expect to be able to write to another branch with the WAP branch set. I'm curious what other people think the long-term behavior should be. > > I think this behavior does help ensure that there are no side-effects, which is good if you want people to trust the pattern. But that's undermined by enabling/disabling WAP on a per-table basis. Would love to know what others think. cc @rdblue @amogh-jahagirdar @namrathamyske @aokolnychyi ### Query engine None -- 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: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
