The vote passes with 5 binding votes and 7 non-binding votes. Thanks all! I will rebase the PR and ensure CI passes before merging.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022, at 16:14, Wes McKinney wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 9:12 PM Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> My vote continues to be +1 >> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 11:44 AM Neal Richardson <neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > Neal >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:15 PM Ashish <paliwalash...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 (non-binding) >> > > >> > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 9:41 AM Gavin Ray <ray.gavi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Oh, so that's what "non-binding" means in vote threads >> > > > Those threads make a lot more sense now, thanks for the heads-up =) >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 12:31 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Non-binding votes are always welcome and encouraged! Was just trying >> > to >> > > > > make sure we have the minimum 3 binding votes here but it turns out I >> > > > can't >> > > > > count and I make three. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022, at 12:14, Gavin Ray wrote: >> > > > > > If non-PMC can vote, I'll also give a huge +1 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 11:34 AM Matthew Topol >> > > > > <m...@voltrondata.com.invalid> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> I'm not PMC but i'll give a +1 (non-binding) vote. I like the idea >> > > of >> > > > > >> integrating Substrait plans into Flight SQL if possible and it >> > > aligns >> > > > > >> with the arrow-adbc work. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 8 2022 at 11:31:59 AM -0400, David Li < >> > > > lidav...@apache.org> >> > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > My vote: +1 (binding) >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Are any other PMC members available to take a look? >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022, at 09:18, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> > > > > >> >> Fair enough. For the record, my main concern with ad-hoc >> > > > conventions >> > > > > >> >> such as "number of milliseconds expressed as an integer" is >> > the >> > > > poor >> > > > > >> >> usability and the potential for confusion (not to mention that >> > > > > >> >> sometimes >> > > > > >> >> the need for a higher precision can lead to add another set of >> > > > > >> >> APIs, but >> > > > > >> >> that's unlikely to be the case here :-)). >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> Regards >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> Antoine. >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> Le 07/09/2022 à 14:21, David Li a écrit : >> > > > > >> >>> Absent further comments on this I would rather avoid adding a >> > > > > >> >>> potentially breaking (even if likely compatible) change to the >> > > > > >> >>> schema of this endpoint, if that's acceptable. I don't think a >> > > > > >> >>> millisecond timeout is all too different from floating-point >> > > > > >> >>> seconds (especially at the scale of network RPCs). >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2022, at 12:44, David Li wrote: >> > > > > >> >>>> We could add a new type code to the union. Presumably >> > > consumers >> > > > > >> >>>> would >> > > > > >> >>>> just error on or ignore such values (the libraries just hand >> > > the >> > > > > >> >>>> Arrow >> > > > > >> >>>> array to the application, so it's up to the application what >> > > to >> > > > > >> >>>> do with >> > > > > >> >>>> an unknown type code). (And for a new consumer talking to an >> > > old >> > > > > >> >>>> server, the new type code would just never come up, so the >> > > only >> > > > > >> >>>> issue >> > > > > >> >>>> would be if it strictly validates the returned schema.) >> > > > > >> >>>> >> > > > > >> >>>> If there's support, I can make this revision as well. >> > > > > >> >>>> >> > > > > >> >>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2022, at 12:37, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> > > > > >> >>>>> Le 06/09/2022 à 17:21, David Li a écrit : >> > > > > >> >>>>>> Thanks Antoine! >> > > > > >> >>>>>> >> > > > > >> >>>>>> I've updated the PR (except for the comment about timeout >> > > > > >> >>>>>> units, since SqlInfo values can't be doubles/floats unless >> > we >> > > > > >> >>>>>> change the schema there) >> > > > > >> >>>>> >> > > > > >> >>>>> Can we change the schema in a backwards-compatible way? >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > thanks >> > > ashish >> > > >> >
