+1 On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 21:21, Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:17 PM Weston Pace <weston.p...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would like > > to submit for a vote. > > > > --- > > Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property. This > > has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a timestamp > > without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted it > > to be a LocalDateTime. > > > > This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and assert > > that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as > > LocalDateTime. > > > > Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a discussion > > on the semantics) please refer to [3] > > --- > > > > For sample arguments for/against see [2]. For a summary of some of > > the discussion in [1] and a detailed discussion about the different > > temporal concepts see [3]. A related straw poll (and eventual vote) > > will be sent regarding treatment of instants as potential Arrow types. > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > [ ] +1 Update comments in schema.fbs to assert the above > > [ ] +0 > > [ ] -1 Do not make any change > > > > [1]: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8216e5de3efd2935e3907ad9bd20ce07e430952f84de69b36337e5eb%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E > > [2]: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDAuxEDVo3YxZx20fGUGqQxi3aoss7TJ-TzOUjaoZk8/edit?usp=sharing > > [3]: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QDwX4ypfNvESc2ywcT1ygaf2Y1R8SmkpifMV7gpJdBI/edit?usp=sharing > > >
