+1 (binding) On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:39 AM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> wrote:
> +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 >>>>> >>>>
