Encrypting IO as a DelegateFileIO

[smaheshwar-pltr]

A table having encryption should not discount it from it supporting bulk operations (e.g.

iceberg/spark/v4.0/spark/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/spark/actions/DeleteOrphanFilesSparkAction.java

Lines 316 to 344 in 9ca8029

	private void deleteBulk(SupportsBulkOperations io, List<String> paths) {
	try {
	io.deleteFiles(paths);
	LOG.info("Deleted {} files using bulk deletes", paths.size());
	} catch (BulkDeletionFailureException e) {
	int deletedFilesCount = paths.size() - e.numberFailedObjects();
	LOG.warn(
	"Deleted only {} of {} files using bulk deletes", deletedFilesCount, paths.size(), e);
	}
	}
	private void deleteNonBulk(List<String> paths) {
	Tasks.Builder<String> deleteTasks =
	Tasks.foreach(paths)
	.noRetry()
	.executeWith(deleteExecutorService)
	.suppressFailureWhenFinished()
	.onFailure((file, exc) -> LOG.warn("Failed to delete file: {}", file, exc));
	if (deleteFunc == null) {
	LOG.info(
	"Table IO {} does not support bulk operations. Using non-bulk deletes.",
	table.io().getClass().getName());
	deleteTasks.run(table.io()::deleteFile);
	} else {
	LOG.info("Custom delete function provided. Using non-bulk deletes");
	deleteTasks.run(deleteFunc::accept);
	}
	}

) if the underlying IO supports it. But currently EncryptingFileIO#combine will never result in a FIleIO that SupportsBulkOperations.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 30 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@iceberg.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions.

[smaheshwar-pltr]

Bump to remove staleness

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 30 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@iceberg.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions.

[smaheshwar-pltr]

not stale

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 30 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@iceberg.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions.

[smaheshwar-pltr]

Bump to remove staleness

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 30 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@iceberg.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions.

[smaheshwar-pltr]

not stale

[smaheshwar-pltr]

I agree this isn't the nicest, but just following the existing pattern with SupportsPrefixOperations. DelegateFileIO is a very common case so I think we should support this flow

[smaheshwar-pltr]

cc @huaxingao @ggershinsky @singhpk234 please may you take a look here?