Skip to content

Conversation

@wypoon
Copy link
Contributor

@wypoon wypoon commented Jun 7, 2023

Currently, the write delete/update/merge mode for a table (copy-on-write or merge-on-read) is specified as a table property in the table. For some use cases, it makes sense to want to use copy-on-write for some Spark jobs writing to a table and merge-on-read for other jobs writing to the same table. Constantly toggling the table property is not a usable workaround.

In this change, we allow the mode to be specified in Spark's SQLConf. If it is specified in the SQLConf, that setting overrides what is set in the corresponding table property.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the spark label Jun 7, 2023
@pan3793
Copy link
Member

pan3793 commented Jun 7, 2023

I opened another PR also aims to expose some configuration to SQL conf.

Seems that Iceberg only allows a small set of configurations to be overwritten by SQL session configuration. I'm wondering if we can expose all configurations to SQL conf.

@wypoon
Copy link
Contributor Author

wypoon commented Jun 7, 2023

@pan3793 I think it would be on a case-by-case basis depending on the use case for each configuration.

cc: @rdblue @aokolnychyi @RussellSpitzer @szehon-ho

@wypoon wypoon changed the title Spark 3.4: Allow write modes to be specified in SQLConf Spark 3.4: Allow write mode (copy-on-write/merge-on-read) to be specified in SQLConf Jun 7, 2023
@manuzhang
Copy link
Member

I think read configs like read.split.* should also be configurable in SQL session. @wypoon can you initiate a discussion on dev list?

@wypoon
Copy link
Contributor Author

wypoon commented Jun 21, 2023

I think read configs like read.split.* should also be configurable in SQL session. @wypoon can you initiate a discussion on dev list?

@manuzhang you can add your voice to the thread I already started on the dev list.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 2, 2024

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 [email protected] list. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Sep 2, 2024
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 9, 2024

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 Sep 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants