+0.5 I guess I'm a bit late to the party since we already have arrow.parquet.variant but it feels like parquet-specific types would just fit the definition for community extension types[1]. In other words, Parquet is free to define whatever extension types they want and there is no need for Arrow PMC approval in the same way that GeoArrow is free to define whatever extension types they want.
> To ensure full interoperability, Arrow requires a matching canonical > in-memory extension type so that file fields do not lose their > semantic metadata during serialization across IPC streams, the C > Data Interface, Arrow Flight, and language bindings. I also somewhat disagree with this characterization. As long as the producer and consumer agree on the type then there is no need for every middleman (or even Arrow itself) to be aware of it. That's the entire goal of extension types. IPC streams, the C data interface, Arrow flight, and language bindings should all respect existing metadata and should _not_ strip it out, even if they don't recognize it. That being said, I am happy for someone (even if it is Arrow and not Parquet) to bless a canonical extension type for any Parquet-specific types and so I will turn my vote into a +1 if needed for passage. Otherwise I'll leave it as a half vote to discourage Arrow taking on the mantle of blessing another format's types. [1] https://arrow.apache.org/docs/format/CanonicalExtensions.html#community-extension-types On Fri, Nov 6, 2026 at 11:36 AM Mandukhai Alimaa <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The FILE column type is being adopted across Parquet, Delta Lake, > Apache Iceberg, and Apache Spark so the broader ecosystem can natively > leverage structured file-level references. To ensure full > interoperability, Arrow requires a matching canonical in-memory > extension type so that file fields do not lose their semantic metadata > during serialization across IPC streams, the C Data Interface, Arrow > Flight, and language bindings. > > Following up on the discussion thread [1] and the subsequent format > change PR [2], we (@rok and I) would like to propose a formal vote to > add arrow.parquet.file as a canonical extension type to the Apache > Arrow format specification. This proposal already had reviews from > four different committers on GitHub and closely matches the Parquet > file logical type. > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5qw2k7rwstk0ol9ymds5qym81myznmpl > [2] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/51248 > [3] GitHub Issue: https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/51143 > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > Please cast your vote: > [ ] +1 Accept this proposal > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal because... > > Thanks >
