materialize-iceberg: use a different mechanism for computing the highest field ID from a schema #2535
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…est field ID from a schema We are stuck on an old version of iceberg-go for now that does not account for certain logical types when computing the highest field ID for an existing schema. This creates a simple stand-in for doing that correctly with the column types we use.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description:
We are stuck on an old version of iceberg-go for now that does not account for certain logical types when computing the highest field ID for an existing schema. This creates a simple stand-in for doing that correctly with the column types we use.
Workflow steps:
(How does one use this feature, and how has it changed)
Documentation links affected:
(list any documentation links that you created, or existing ones that you've identified as needing updates, along with a brief description)
Notes for reviewers:
(anything that might help someone review this PR)
This change is