Skip to content

Core: Use time-travel schema when resolving partition spec in scan #13301

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
pvary merged 1 commit into from
Oct 27, 2025
Merged

Core: Use time-travel schema when resolving partition spec in scan #13301

pvary merged 1 commit into from
Oct 27, 2025

Conversation

@chenjian2664
Copy link
Contributor

@chenjian2664 chenjian2664 commented Jun 12, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Slack: https://apache-iceberg.slack.com/archives/C03LG1D563F/p1749201124409489

Fixes : #11162

Fix table scan with filter when doing time-travel

@github-actions github-actions bot added the core label Jun 12, 2025
@chenjian2664 chenjian2664 changed the title Use time-travel schema when resolving partition spec in scan Core: Use time-travel schema when resolving partition spec in scan Jun 12, 2025
ebyhr
ebyhr reviewed Jul 4, 2025
View reviewed changes
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 7, 2025

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 30 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@iceberg.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Aug 7, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 15, 2025

This pull request has been closed due to lack of activity. This is not a judgement on the merit of the PR in any way. It is just a way of keeping the PR queue manageable. If you think that is incorrect, or the pull request requires review, you can revive the PR at any time.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Aug 15, 2025
@manuzhang manuzhang reopened this Sep 2, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale label Sep 3, 2025
@chenjian2664
Copy link
Contributor Author

chenjian2664 commented Sep 3, 2025

@manuzhang Thank you for helping reopen it!

@chenjian2664
Copy link
Contributor Author

chenjian2664 commented Sep 11, 2025

@manuzhang Any updates?

@chenjian2664
Copy link
Contributor Author

chenjian2664 commented Sep 15, 2025

gentle reminder @aokolnychyi @szehon-ho

pvary
pvary reviewed Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
pvary
pvary reviewed Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
pvary
pvary reviewed Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
@chenjian2664 chenjian2664 requested a review from pvary October 6, 2025 15:56
@chenjian2664
Copy link
Contributor Author

chenjian2664 commented Oct 14, 2025

@pvary @manuzhang Would you mind to have a look ?

@pvary
Copy link
Contributor

pvary commented Oct 14, 2025

@chenjian2664: Could you please check the failing test?

manuzhang
manuzhang reviewed Oct 14, 2025
View reviewed changes
@chenjian2664
Copy link
Contributor Author

chenjian2664 commented Oct 17, 2025

@pvary updated, and tested on my local

@chenjian2664 chenjian2664 force-pushed the snapshot_spec branch 2 times, most recently from 93299ac to c57f9e1 Compare October 18, 2025 13:00
@pvary
Copy link
Contributor

pvary commented Oct 20, 2025

Thanks @chenjian2664.
LGTM.
Let's give others some time and see if someone else has some comments.

ebyhr
ebyhr approved these changes Oct 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
@chenjian2664 chenjian2664 force-pushed the snapshot_spec branch 2 times, most recently from a3e2cd2 to 0d45b4f Compare October 22, 2025 10:56
pvary
pvary reviewed Oct 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
@pvary
Copy link
Contributor

pvary commented Oct 23, 2025

@nastra: Any more comments?

@nastra
Copy link
Contributor

nastra commented Oct 23, 2025

@nastra: Any more comments?

I'll take another look tomorrow/monday with fresh eyes

@pvary pvary merged commit 867835e into apache:main Oct 27, 2025
42 checks passed
@pvary
Copy link
Contributor

pvary commented Oct 27, 2025

Merged to main.
Thanks @chenjian2664 for the PR and @ebyhr, @nastra for the review!

@chenjian2664
Copy link
Contributor Author

chenjian2664 commented Oct 27, 2025

Thank you @pvary @ebyhr @nastra !

@chenjian2664 chenjian2664 deleted the snapshot_spec branch October 27, 2025 15:00
This was referenced Oct 29, 2025
Draft
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@manuzhang manuzhang manuzhang left review comments

@pvary pvary pvary approved these changes

@nastra nastra nastra approved these changes

@aokolnychyi aokolnychyi Awaiting requested review from aokolnychyi

@szehon-ho szehon-ho Awaiting requested review from szehon-ho

@RussellSpitzer RussellSpitzer Awaiting requested review from RussellSpitzer

+2 more reviewers

@findinpath findinpath findinpath left review comments

@ebyhr ebyhr ebyhr approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

core

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Incorrect schema used when using time-travel

6 participants

@chenjian2664 @pvary @nastra @manuzhang @ebyhr @findinpath