-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 348
Site: Add a page for policy management #1600
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.
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
Changes from 5 commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,207 @@ | ||||||||
| --- | ||||||||
| # | ||||||||
| # Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one | ||||||||
| # or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file | ||||||||
| # distributed with this work for additional information | ||||||||
| # regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file | ||||||||
| # to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the | ||||||||
| # "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance | ||||||||
| # with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at | ||||||||
| # | ||||||||
| # http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | ||||||||
| # | ||||||||
| # Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, | ||||||||
| # software distributed under the License is distributed on an | ||||||||
| # "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY | ||||||||
| # KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the | ||||||||
| # specific language governing permissions and limitations | ||||||||
| # under the License. | ||||||||
| # | ||||||||
| title: Policy | ||||||||
| type: docs | ||||||||
| weight: 425 | ||||||||
| --- | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| The Polaris Policy framework empowers organizations to centrally define, manage, and enforce fine-grained governance, lifecycle, and operational rules across all data resources in the catalog. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| With the policy API, you can: | ||||||||
| - Create and manage policies | ||||||||
| - Attach policies to specific resources (catalogs, namespaces, tables, or views) | ||||||||
| - Check applicable policies for any given resource | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ## What is a Policy? | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| A policy in Apache Polaris is a structured entity that defines rules governing actions on specified resources under | ||||||||
| predefined conditions. Each policy contains: | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| - **Name**: A unique identifier within a namespace | ||||||||
| - **Type**: Determines the semantics and expected format of the policy content | ||||||||
| - **Description**: Explains the purpose of the policy | ||||||||
| - **Content**: Contains the actual rules defining the policy behavior | ||||||||
| - **Version**: An automatically tracked revision number | ||||||||
| - **Inheritable**: Whether the policy can be inherited by child resources, decided by its type | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ### Policy Types | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| Polaris supports several predefined system policy types (prefixed with `system.`): | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| - **`system.data-compaction`**: Defines rules for data compaction operations | ||||||||
| - Schema Definition: @https://polaris.apache.org/schemas/policies/system/data-compaction/2025-02-03.json | ||||||||
| - Controls file compaction to optimize storage and query performance | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
| Applicable resources: Iceberg table, namespace, catalog |
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMHO, the site contains only the features/concepts that has been finalized and implemented, but I also that mentioning these features here can help form a better understanding of the general scope of policy. Should we phrase this more generally, such as: 'Support for additional predefined system policy types and custom policy type definitions is in progress. For more details, please refer to the roadmap.' This way, we avoid over-sharing implementation details while still giving users a clear sense of the feature scope.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think calling FGAC out explicitly will provide a clear picture of what we are trying to do, as the questions about FGAC policy will come up naturally from anyone who understand policies. However, I'm OK with either way. Let me know if you strongly feel which way is better. I can make the changes correspondently.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That makes total sense—thanks for the clear explanation! My main concern was that listing those three specific FGAC policy types might give the impression that the community has already made concrete decisions on the direction. Maybe we could just mark them as tentative examples to make it clearer they're still under discussion (i.e. extends the WIP a little bit)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Made the change per suggestion
HonahX marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
| The policy content is validated against a schema specific to its type. Here are a few policy content examples | |
| The policy content is validated against a schema specific to its type. Here are a few policy content examples: |
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
[not requesting change]: is there a document about why this is the case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added a note at the section "Policy Inheritance"
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should we skip this part for now ? as its bit too much info.
| read permission on that resource. The permission model may be enhanced in the future when Fine-Grained Access Control | |
| policy is introduced, which will provide more granular control over policy visibility and management. | |
| read permission on that resource. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should we also mention the RBAC comes into picture ? as not every one can see all the policies applicable to a resource, for ex i think in current implementation we need to require permission on a resource to see the policy applicable ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
question: what does the "@" do for links in this framework?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Converted it to a table, in which
@is removed.