You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@iceberg.apache.org by Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> on 2026/05/20 20:37:28 UTC
[VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Hi everyone,
I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister` endpoint
to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is #16400
<https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16400>.
Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a table
from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata files. The
purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This requires a new
endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata files should be
left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table should be returned.
Please vote in the next 72 hours,
[ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
[ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
[ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
Thanks,
Ryan
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Amogh Jahagirdar <2a...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 5:15 PM Steve <ho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration scenarios.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <
> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi everyone,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister`
> endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is
> #16400.
> > >>>
> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a
> table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata
> files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This
> requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata
> files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table
> should be returned.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
> > >>>
> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Ryan
>
[RESULT] [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org>.
With 16 +1 votes (9 binding / 7 non-binding) and no +0 or -1 votes,
this passes. Thanks, everyone!
Ryan
On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 12:29 PM Daniel Weeks <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 11:36 PM Maninder Parmar <
> parmar.maninderjit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding) as it defines clearer semantics about data lifecycle
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2026, 8:23 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <
>> etudenhoefner@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (binding)
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 8:13 AM Gang Wu <us...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 1:13 PM Péter Váry <pe...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > +1 binding
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, May 21, 2026, 04:15 roryqi <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> +1 (non-binding)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Neelesh Salian <ne...@gmail.com> 于2026年5月21日周四 07:48写道：
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > +1 (non-binding). PR looks good. Thanks Ryan.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:45 PM Kevin Liu <ke...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> +1 (binding)
>>>> >> >> thanks!
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:23 PM Steven Wu <st...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> +1 (binding)
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:15 PM Steve <ho...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <
>>>> adutra@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >>>> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration
>>>> scenarios.
>>>> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >>>> > Thanks,
>>>> >> >>>> > Alex
>>>> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >>>> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> > >
>>>> >> >>>> > > +1
>>>> >> >>>> > >
>>>> >> >>>> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <
>>>> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> > >>
>>>> >> >>>> > >> +1
>>>> >> >>>> > >>
>>>> >> >>>> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>>> >> >>>> > >>> Hi everyone,
>>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>>> >> >>>> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an
>>>> `unregister` endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the
>>>> addition. The PR is #16400.
>>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>>> >> >>>> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you
>>>> to remove a table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and
>>>> metadata files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another.
>>>> This requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata
>>>> files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table
>>>> should be returned.
>>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>>> >> >>>> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
>>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>>> >> >>>> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
>>>> >> >>>> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
>>>> >> >>>> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
>>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>>> >> >>>> > >>> Thanks,
>>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>>> >> >>>> > >>> Ryan
>>>>
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Daniel Weeks <dw...@apache.org>.
+1 (binding)
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 11:36 PM Maninder Parmar <
parmar.maninderjit@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) as it defines clearer semantics about data lifecycle
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2026, 8:23 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <et...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 8:13 AM Gang Wu <us...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 1:13 PM Péter Váry <pe...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1 binding
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, May 21, 2026, 04:15 roryqi <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> +1 (non-binding)
>>> >>
>>> >> Neelesh Salian <ne...@gmail.com> 于2026年5月21日周四 07:48写道：
>>> >> >
>>> >> > +1 (non-binding). PR looks good. Thanks Ryan.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:45 PM Kevin Liu <ke...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> +1 (binding)
>>> >> >> thanks!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:23 PM Steven Wu <st...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> +1 (binding)
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:15 PM Steve <ho...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <
>>> adutra@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >> >>>> >
>>> >> >>>> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration
>>> scenarios.
>>> >> >>>> >
>>> >> >>>> > Thanks,
>>> >> >>>> > Alex
>>> >> >>>> >
>>> >> >>>> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>> > >
>>> >> >>>> > > +1
>>> >> >>>> > >
>>> >> >>>> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <
>>> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>> > >>
>>> >> >>>> > >> +1
>>> >> >>>> > >>
>>> >> >>>> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>> >> >>>> > >>> Hi everyone,
>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>> >> >>>> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an
>>> `unregister` endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the
>>> addition. The PR is #16400.
>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>> >> >>>> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to
>>> remove a table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and
>>> metadata files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another.
>>> This requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata
>>> files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table
>>> should be returned.
>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>> >> >>>> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>> >> >>>> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
>>> >> >>>> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
>>> >> >>>> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>> >> >>>> > >>> Thanks,
>>> >> >>>> > >>>
>>> >> >>>> > >>> Ryan
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Maninder Parmar <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding) as it defines clearer semantics about data lifecycle
On Thu, May 21, 2026, 8:23 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <et...@apache.org>
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 8:13 AM Gang Wu <us...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 1:13 PM Péter Váry <pe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 binding
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 21, 2026, 04:15 roryqi <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1 (non-binding)
>> >>
>> >> Neelesh Salian <ne...@gmail.com> 于2026年5月21日周四 07:48写道：
>> >> >
>> >> > +1 (non-binding). PR looks good. Thanks Ryan.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:45 PM Kevin Liu <ke...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +1 (binding)
>> >> >> thanks!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:23 PM Steven Wu <st...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> +1 (binding)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:15 PM Steve <ho...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> +1 (non-binding)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <
>> adutra@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration
>> scenarios.
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> > Thanks,
>> >> >>>> > Alex
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>> > >
>> >> >>>> > > +1
>> >> >>>> > >
>> >> >>>> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <
>> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>> > >>
>> >> >>>> > >> +1
>> >> >>>> > >>
>> >> >>>> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>> > >>>
>> >> >>>> > >>> Hi everyone,
>> >> >>>> > >>>
>> >> >>>> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an
>> `unregister` endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the
>> addition. The PR is #16400.
>> >> >>>> > >>>
>> >> >>>> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to
>> remove a table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and
>> metadata files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another.
>> This requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata
>> files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table
>> should be returned.
>> >> >>>> > >>>
>> >> >>>> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
>> >> >>>> > >>>
>> >> >>>> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
>> >> >>>> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
>> >> >>>> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
>> >> >>>> > >>>
>> >> >>>> > >>> Thanks,
>> >> >>>> > >>>
>> >> >>>> > >>> Ryan
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Eduard Tudenhöfner <et...@apache.org>.
+1 (binding)
On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 8:13 AM Gang Wu <us...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 1:13 PM Péter Váry <pe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 binding
> >
> > On Thu, May 21, 2026, 04:15 roryqi <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 (non-binding)
> >>
> >> Neelesh Salian <ne...@gmail.com> 于2026年5月21日周四 07:48写道：
> >> >
> >> > +1 (non-binding). PR looks good. Thanks Ryan.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:45 PM Kevin Liu <ke...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> +1 (binding)
> >> >> thanks!
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:23 PM Steven Wu <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> +1 (binding)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:15 PM Steve <ho...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> +1 (non-binding)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration
> scenarios.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > Thanks,
> >> >>>> > Alex
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>> > >
> >> >>>> > > +1
> >> >>>> > >
> >> >>>> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <
> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >>>> > >> +1
> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >>>> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >>>> > >>> Hi everyone,
> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >>>> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an
> `unregister` endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the
> addition. The PR is #16400.
> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >>>> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to
> remove a table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and
> metadata files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another.
> This requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata
> files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table
> should be returned.
> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >>>> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >>>> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
> >> >>>> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
> >> >>>> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >>>> > >>> Thanks,
> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >>>> > >>> Ryan
>
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Gang Wu <us...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 1:13 PM Péter Váry <pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 binding
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2026, 04:15 roryqi <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> Neelesh Salian <ne...@gmail.com> 于2026年5月21日周四 07:48写道：
>> >
>> > +1 (non-binding). PR looks good. Thanks Ryan.
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:45 PM Kevin Liu <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1 (binding)
>> >> thanks!
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:23 PM Steven Wu <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> +1 (binding)
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:15 PM Steve <ho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> +1 (non-binding)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration scenarios.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Thanks,
>> >>>> > Alex
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > +1
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> > >>
>> >>>> > >> +1
>> >>>> > >>
>> >>>> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>> > >>>
>> >>>> > >>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>> > >>>
>> >>>> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister` endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is #16400.
>> >>>> > >>>
>> >>>> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table should be returned.
>> >>>> > >>>
>> >>>> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
>> >>>> > >>>
>> >>>> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
>> >>>> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
>> >>>> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
>> >>>> > >>>
>> >>>> > >>> Thanks,
>> >>>> > >>>
>> >>>> > >>> Ryan
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Péter Váry <pe...@gmail.com>.
+1 binding
On Thu, May 21, 2026, 04:15 roryqi <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Neelesh Salian <ne...@gmail.com> 于2026年5月21日周四 07:48写道：
> >
> > +1 (non-binding). PR looks good. Thanks Ryan.
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:45 PM Kevin Liu <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 (binding)
> >> thanks!
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:23 PM Steven Wu <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1 (binding)
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:15 PM Steve <ho...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 (non-binding)
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration
> scenarios.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Thanks,
> >>>> > Alex
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > +1
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <
> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> > >>
> >>>> > >> +1
> >>>> > >>
> >>>> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>> > >>>
> >>>> > >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>> > >>>
> >>>> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an
> `unregister` endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the
> addition. The PR is #16400.
> >>>> > >>>
> >>>> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to
> remove a table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and
> metadata files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another.
> This requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata
> files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table
> should be returned.
> >>>> > >>>
> >>>> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
> >>>> > >>>
> >>>> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
> >>>> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
> >>>> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
> >>>> > >>>
> >>>> > >>> Thanks,
> >>>> > >>>
> >>>> > >>> Ryan
>
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by roryqi <ro...@apache.org>.
+1 (non-binding)
Neelesh Salian <ne...@gmail.com> 于2026年5月21日周四 07:48写道：
>
> +1 (non-binding). PR looks good. Thanks Ryan.
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:45 PM Kevin Liu <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> +1 (binding)
>> thanks!
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:23 PM Steven Wu <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 (binding)
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:15 PM Steve <ho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration scenarios.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > Alex
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > +1
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> +1
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Hi everyone,
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister` endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is #16400.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table should be returned.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
>>>> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
>>>> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Thanks,
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Ryan
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Neelesh Salian <ne...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding). PR looks good. Thanks Ryan.
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:45 PM Kevin Liu <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 (binding)
> thanks!
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:23 PM Steven Wu <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:15 PM Steve <ho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration scenarios.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Alex
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > +1
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <
>>> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> +1
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Hi everyone,
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister`
>>> endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is
>>> #16400.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove
>>> a table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata
>>> files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This
>>> requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata
>>> files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table
>>> should be returned.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
>>> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
>>> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Thanks,
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Ryan
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by huaxin gao <hu...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:45 PM Kevin Liu <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 (binding)
> thanks!
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:23 PM Steven Wu <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:15 PM Steve <ho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration scenarios.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Alex
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > +1
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <
>>> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> +1
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Hi everyone,
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister`
>>> endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is
>>> #16400.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove
>>> a table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata
>>> files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This
>>> requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata
>>> files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table
>>> should be returned.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
>>> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
>>> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Thanks,
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Ryan
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Kevin Liu <ke...@apache.org>.
+1 (binding)
thanks!
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:23 PM Steven Wu <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:15 PM Steve <ho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration scenarios.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Alex
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > +1
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <
>> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> +1
>> > >>
>> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Hi everyone,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister`
>> endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is
>> #16400.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a
>> table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata
>> files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This
>> requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata
>> files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table
>> should be returned.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
>> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
>> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Ryan
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Steven Wu <st...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 4:15 PM Steve <ho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration scenarios.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <
> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi everyone,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister`
> endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is
> #16400.
> > >>>
> > >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a
> table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata
> files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This
> requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata
> files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table
> should be returned.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
> > >>>
> > >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
> > >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
> > >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Ryan
>
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Steve <ho...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration scenarios.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister` endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is #16400.
> >>>
> >>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table should be returned.
> >>>
> >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
> >>>
> >>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
> >>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
> >>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Ryan
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Alexandre Dutra <ad...@apache.org>.
+1 (non-binding), this will be useful for catalog migration scenarios.
Thanks,
Alex
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 10:40 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister` endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is #16400.
>>>
>>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a table from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata files. The purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This requires a new endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata files should be left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table should be returned.
>>>
>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
>>>
>>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
>>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
>>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ryan
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org>.
+1
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM Russell Spitzer <ru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister`
>> endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is
>> #16400 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16400>.
>>
>> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a table
>> from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata files. The
>> purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This requires a new
>> endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata files should be
>> left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table should be returned.
>>
>> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
>>
>> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
>> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
>> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Russell Spitzer <ru...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister`
> endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is
> #16400 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16400>.
>
> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a table
> from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata files. The
> purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This requires a new
> endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata files should be
> left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table should be returned.
>
> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
>
> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan
>
Re: [VOTE] Add unregister endpoint to the REST spec
Posted by Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com>.
+1(binding) Thanks Ryan!
Yufei
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:37 PM Ryan Blue <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think that there is general agreement for adding an `unregister`
> endpoint to the REST spec, so I'd like to vote on the addition. The PR is
> #16400 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16400>.
>
> Unregister is the opposite of `register` and allows you to remove a table
> from a catalog without deleting its underlying data and metadata files. The
> purpose is to allow moving from one catalog to another. This requires a new
> endpoint because the underlying table data and metadata files should be
> left in place, and the latest catalog state of the table should be returned.
>
> Please vote in the next 72 hours,
>
> [ ] +1: Add unregister to the REST spec
> [ ] +0: Note a non-blocking concern . . .
> [ ] -1: Do not add unregister because . . .
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan
>