A development team changes a Catalog table definition before promoting it to production.
Avoid accidental replacement and retain an auditable, approved definition.
Which design is most appropriate?
Represent catalog definitions and permissions as versioned code, isolate environments, and promote reviewed changes.
Detailed explanation
The logical-to-physical mapping becomes unstable for downstream users.
The logical-to-physical mapping becomes unstable for downstream users.
The resulting diff, author, and rollback path are unclear.
The resulting diff, author, and rollback path are unclear.
Deleting data is not an approval or history mechanism for metadata.
Deleting data is not an approval or history mechanism for metadata.
Schema, location, and permissions become reproducible and reviewable rather than relying on direct production edits.
Schema, location, and permissions become reproducible and reviewable rather than relying on direct production edits.
Check official documentation
Compare the following points with the official documentation.
AWS Glue Data Catalog、Lake Formation permissions、CloudFormationの公式説明を確認する。
What to confirm
データモデル変更を物理データ削除ではなくメタデータと権限の変更として管理できる。
Key points
- Data Catalog
- Infrastructure as code
- Environment isolation
- Change history
Notes
- Environment: AWS公式DEA-C01試験ガイドと各サービスの公式ドキュメントの確認
- Confirm current AWS service behavior in the official DEA-C01 documentation.
Foundation review
Reproducibility
The same reviewed definition should be deployable again and compared as a diff.
Metadata and permissions
Catalog structure and Lake Formation grants should be promoted and audited together.