The PR is now merged: https://github.com/apache/arrow/commit/3ce40143f8a836df058ec5fe1b29d9da5ede169d
Thanks all! On Sat, Sep 10, 2022, at 18:15, David Li wrote: > 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 >>> > > >>> >
