-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
Core: Propagate catalog-level properties to iceberg-views. #11025
Conversation
e551058
to
a21f4db
Compare
@@ -79,6 +79,7 @@ protected BaseViewBuilder(TableIdentifier identifier) { | |||
Preconditions.checkArgument( | |||
isValidIdentifier(identifier), "Invalid view identifier: %s", identifier); | |||
this.identifier = identifier; | |||
this.properties.putAll(tableDefaultProperties()); |
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.
does it make sense to pass properties prefixed with table-default.
to views? I think passing properties prefixed with view-default.
seems more reasonable to me, which is being handled in #11064
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.
Thanks @nastra for reviewing it. I had this impression of applying catalog properties for both table and view. Else it will contain duplicate info for both table and view. Since #11064 is already in progress , Do you think I should continue this PR. It looks duplicate work for me. only diff is I am honoring table-override
also with this PR.
WDYT? pl share the feedback.
a21f4db
to
352bac1
Compare
Closing this, I will push this on the ongoing pr #11064 |
Similar like Iceberg-Table, allow view properties defaults to be configured at catalog level.