docs(readme): add Known limitations section for retention#38
Merged
Conversation
Captures the conclusion of the 2026-05 retention discussion: skaldberg
has no row-level retention story today and the right move is to wait
for either upstream path to open rather than ship an external Athena
DELETE workaround.
- iceberg-rust gaining row-level DELETE / RowDelta. PRs in flight:
apache/iceberg-rust#2185 (CoW OverwriteAction), #2203 (RowDelta
for MoR), #2367 (delete-files in snapshot producer). Realistic
landing window 0.10 / 0.11 (~mid-2026).
- AWS extending PutTableRecordExpirationConfiguration from
AWS-managed tables (S3 Storage Lens / SageMaker Catalog) to
customer-created S3 Tables. Mechanism exists, no roadmap signal.
Storage cost growth is documented (~9 GB/year per 100 samples/s
sustained, $0.025/GB-month) so the "what does deferring cost"
trade-off is explicit. External Athena DELETE is mentioned as the
escape hatch for users who can't wait, with the caveat that it
adds an ops piece outside skaldberg's "operation-less" surface.
Also folded:
- `without (...)` modifier moved from the fallback list into the
pushdown table (PR #37 made it SQL-pushed).
- Roadmap "Open" replaced with "In progress" pointing at the
Phase 9 dogfood scenario (the actual current activity).
- Phase 8 "Done" entry now lists `without (...)` so the status
line matches what's in the tree.
1 task
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
Captures the conclusion of the 2026-05 retention discussion: skaldberg has no row-level retention story today and the right move is to wait for either upstream path to open rather than ship an external Athena DELETE workaround.
The new "Known limitations" section names two paths and which one(s) we wait for:
iceberg-rustgaining row-level DELETE /RowDelta. PRs in flight as of 2026-05: apache/iceberg-rust#2185 (CoWOverwriteAction), #2203 (RowDeltafor MoR), #2367 (delete-files in snapshot producer). Realistic landing window 0.10 or 0.11 (~mid-2026 if the cadence holds).PutTableRecordExpirationConfigurationfrom AWS-managed tables (S3 Storage Lens / SageMaker Catalog) to customer-created S3 Tables. The mechanism, IAM, and console UI exist; no roadmap signal on the coverage extension.Storage cost growth is documented (~9 GB/year per 100 samples/s sustained at $0.025/GB-month) so the trade-off of deferring is explicit. External Athena
DELETEis mentioned as the escape hatch for users who can't wait, with the caveat that it adds an ops piece outside skaldberg's "operation-less" surface.Folded in alongside:
without (...)modifier moved from the fallback list into the pushdown table (PR perf(prometheus): push <agg/topk>(...) without (...) into SQL #37 made it SQL-pushed).without (...).Test plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code