Shouldn't the extension name be `parquet.file`? It's really a direct mapping of the Parquet FILE type, not something we decided to standardize independently.
Also I wonder if it's the Arrow community's role to standardize such extension types, or if we should let the Parquet community do it?
Regards Antoine. Le 02/09/2026 à 22:51, Mandukhai Alimaa a écrit :
Hi everyone, Following the recent addition and subsequent refinement of the FILE LogicalType to the Parquet format specification [1, 2] and the corresponding Parquet C++ reader/writer support currently underway [3], we (@rok and I) would like to propose defining a matching Canonical Extension Type for the Apache Arrow specification: arrow.file. Motivation As storage formats standardize file-level references, Arrow needs a canonical in-memory representation to preserve these semantics across IPC streams, the C Data Interface, Arrow Flight, and language bindings. Without a canonical extension type, file fields lose their semantic metadata during serialization. Proposed High-Level Design: The intended design is to directly align with the finalized Parquet spec [4]. * Extension name: ``arrow.file``. * Storage Type: StructType containing standard optional fields: * ``uri`` (Utf8) * ``offset`` (Int64) * `` size`` (Int64) * ``content_type`` (Utf8) * `` checksum`` (Utf8) * ``inline`` (Binary) I have created a GitHub issue to track this [5]. Please share your thoughts! Thanks! [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/585 [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/603 [3] https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/50891 [4] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/LogicalTypes.md#file [5] https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/51143
