+1 (binding) Kind regards, Fokko
Op wo 23 apr 2025 om 03:08 schreef Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com>: > +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 >>>> >>>
