+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 4:42 AM Prashant Singh <prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > Best, > Prashant Singh > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 2:55 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < > etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 7:31 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non binding) >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 11:20 PM Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi everyone, >>> > >>> > I’d like to vote on the spec changes in PR 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 >>> >>
