The vote has been open for a while now without objection, so the vote passes with 2 +1 votes (binding), 4 +1 votes (non-binding).
Thanks to all the contributors and reviewers who worked on these changes. On Wed, Mar 23, 2022, at 13:28, José Almeida wrote: > Thanks for the reply David. Your answer is correct. > > The first PR [1], we are not voting for it yet. It contains what we've > built from the JDBC using flight-sql so far. I don't recall if we already > implemented the proposals from PR [2] and [3]. > I guess that we already have a draft of typeInfo and ColumnMetadata on > JDBC, but they will need changes after this is approved. > Feel free to take a look in the JDBC PR and give us your feedback Andrew. > All feedbacks are welcome 😀 > > The second PR [2] contains the metadata related to the columns, so some > operations will be able to send it as response and the JDBC/ODBC will have > access to it. The metadata that we are sending > were the ones we identified, but perhaps there should be more that we > couldn't identify. > > The third PR[3] contains another functionality that retrieves information > about the types that the data sources support. > > Feel free to ask any questions you might have 😀 > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:13 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Maybe one of the contributors wants to chime in with more details, but: >> >> PR#12254 isn't part of the vote, it's just the motivation for these >> changes. I suppose it isn't fully in sync with the other PRs? >> PR#11999 annotates fields with metadata that is used to support JDBC/ODBC >> drivers (e.g. the ability to tell what table a column originated from) >> PR#11982 is used to retrieve metadata about supported SQL data types. >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022, at 16:08, Andrew Lamb wrote: >> > BTW thank you all for your work in this matter (making JDBC/ODBC >> clients)! >> > I think it is super valuable for the overall ecosystem. >> > >> > I am sorry for missing the conversation, but I am not clear on what we >> are >> > voting on. Can we please clarify what changes are proposed to FlightSQL? >> > >> > The PRs appear to contain changes to FlightSql.proto that seem somewhat >> > redundant / contradictory. For example: >> > >> > Metadata named `CATALOG_NAME` on [1] >> > Metadata named `ARROW:FLIGHT:SQL:CATALOG_NAME` on [2] >> > No metadata for catalog name on [3] (but does have other metadata like >> > auto_increment) >> > >> > Andrew >> > >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/12254 >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/11999/ >> > [3] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/11982 >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 2:02 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Moral +1 from me. I've posted minor comments on the specs changes in the >> >> PRs. >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 16/03/2022 à 20:50, David Li a écrit : >> >> > Hello, >> >> > >> >> > Jose Almeida and James Duong have proposed two additions to Arrow >> Flight >> >> SQL, an experimental protocol for interacting with SQL databases over >> Arrow >> >> Flight. The purpose of these additions is to provide necessary metadata >> for >> >> implementing a JDBC driver on top of Flight SQL [1]. >> >> > >> >> > The additions are as follows: >> >> > >> >> > - As part of returned schemas, include metadata about the underlying >> SQL >> >> data type [2]. >> >> > - Add a new RPC endpoint, GetXdbcTypeInfo, to get metadata about the >> >> supported SQL data types [3]. >> >> > >> >> > Both pull requests implement the additions in C++ and Java and contain >> >> integration tests. >> >> > >> >> > Please vote whether to accept these enhancements. The vote will be >> open >> >> for at least 72 hours. >> >> > >> >> > [ ] +1 Accept these protocol additions >> >> > [ ] +0 >> >> > [ ] -1 Do not accept these protocol additions because… >> >> > >> >> > [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/12254 >> >> > [2]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/11999 >> >> > [3]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/11982 >> >> > >> >> > -David >> >> >>
