+1 I've been through the spec a couple of times now and I think it is looking good. I'm sure that we'll find things that can be made more clear, but overall it is reasonable and supportable.
Thanks for shepherding this, Yufei! On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:53 AM huaxin gao <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:03 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> With the discussions from the earlier threads largely wrapped up, I would >> like to raise a vote to adopt the SQL UDF specification. >> >> *What is included?* >> The SQL UDF spec defines a common way to describe and manage user defined >> functions across catalogs and engines. It covers how functions are >> identified, their parameters and types, and basic metadata for versioning >> and compatibility. >> >> *What does adopting this spec mean?* >> Adopting this spec means the community agrees on the current design and >> will keep it compatible going forward. It doesn’t require immediate >> implementation or enabling UDFs by default, but sets a stable foundation >> for future work. Any breaking changes later would follow the normal spec >> evolution process. >> >> Many thanks to everyone who contributed feedback, reviews, and design >> discussions to help shape this spec. The amount of iteration and cross >> project input has been invaluable. >> >> Related links: >> 1. Dev mailing discussion: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/flcmx3xgqp7mccqt66vcpmdy11rk5pbo >> 2. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14117. >> >> Please vote within the next 72 hours. >> >> [ ] +1 Adopt the SQL UDF specification >> [ ] +0 >> [ ] -1 Do not adopt at this time, with reason >> >> Yufei >> >
