+1 (non-binding) except for some ambiguity between struct field and fields within struct (Russell already made a nice suggestion).
Thanks, Manu On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 7:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 3:38 PM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 (Binding) >> >> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 4:21 PM Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I’d like to vote on the spec changes in PR 12841 >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12841>. This is a small change >>> that makes handling default values for structs much easier. Initially, we >>> allowed both a struct and its fields to have default values, but the values >>> could conflict. For instance, ADD COLUMN point struct<x int default 0, >>> y int default 0> default struct(-1, -1). >>> >>> The fix is to always track default values at the field level and allow >>> only null or null-null for the struct level defaults. That makes the >>> feature more predictable because the struct’s default never needs to be >>> modified or have field-level changes applied (i.e. removing field y or >>> adding field z). >>> >>> In addition, I want to mention that this is not a one-way decision. We >>> can always allow the struct-level default to differ later, if we have use >>> cases in which a missing struct needs to have a different default than >>> missing fields. >>> >>> Please vote in the next 72 hours: >>> >>> [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec >>> [ ] +0 >>> [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ryan >>> >>
