I'm -0.0 as worded currently. I think there are some more aspects that should be defined for date->timestamp/timestamp_ns promotion (left comments on the PR). The addition of an Unknown type seems like a good addition.
Thanks, Micah On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 2:32 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1(binding) > > Yufei > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 12:42 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> Thanks, >> Amogh Jahagirdar >> >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 1:39 PM rdb...@gmail.com <rdb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 12:32 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (binding) >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 2:41 PM Russell Spitzer < >>>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 (binding) >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 4:37 PM rdb...@gmail.com <rdb...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to vote on PR #10955 >>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10955> that has been open >>>>>> for a while with the changes to add new type promotion cases. After >>>>>> discussion, the PR has been scoped down to keep complexity low. It now >>>>>> adds: >>>>>> >>>>>> * An `unknown` type for cases when only `null` values have been >>>>>> observed >>>>>> * Type promotion from `unknown` to any other type >>>>>> * Type promotion from `date` to `timestamp` or `timestamp_ns` >>>>>> * Clarification that promotion is not allowed if it breaks transform >>>>>> results >>>>>> >>>>>> The set of changes is quite a bit smaller than originally proposed >>>>>> because of the issue already discussed about lower and upper bounds >>>>>> values, >>>>>> and it no longer includes variant. I think that we can add more type >>>>>> promotion cases after we improve bounds metadata. This adds what we can >>>>>> now >>>>>> to keep v3 moving forward. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours: >>>>>> >>>>>> [ ] +1, commit the proposed spec changes >>>>>> [ ] -0 >>>>>> [ ] -1, do not make these changes because . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ryan >>>>>> >>>>>
