Hooray! On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:08 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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 > >>> > > > >>> > >
