danielcweeks commented on PR #7992: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/7992#issuecomment-1622249389
I feel like we lost some context from #7880, specifically the [discussion](https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/7880#discussion_r1250671566) around how we want to represent these APIs. I agree with @jackye1995 about favoring option B. I just feel like this is too SQL specific and limits our options going forward with different representations and creates unnecessary differences with the spec representation. Also, I'm not convinced that you can/should have `field-aliases` and `field-comments` at the top-level. Some engines may support field aliases, but others do not so they don't apply equally to the representations and is inconsistent with the spec, which has them at the representation level. I think it's fine to omit the default catalog and default namespaces, especially if we can appropriately qualify them in the engine when constructing the sql representation. -- 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]
