+1 to the direction (non-binding). Left some clarification comments on the PR.
Thanks, Walaa. On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 10:57 PM Manu Zhang <owenzhang1...@gmail.com> wrote: > +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 >>>> >>>
