+1 (non-binding). I'm really excited about the use cases it can unblock. Thanks, Manu
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 1:27 PM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Went over it, it seems a nice elegant definition. > Thanks > Szehon > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 9:00 PM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 7:26 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 3:52 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> I'd like to start a vote to adopt the new expressions spec. This spec >>>> defines the minimal structure and behavior of expressions >>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VthBz0S2I39TeQM8oiF9_gSPQu_gHAjWXvdFpv0QqDk/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.54u4q3416qx8> >>>> that Iceberg formats need to store and exchange. This is intended to clean >>>> up expressions used in the REST catalog spec (exchanging query filters) and >>>> to enable new use cases that require expressions to be stored in metadata, >>>> including expression defaults (`current_timestamp()`) and `CHECK` >>>> constraints (`col < 360.0`). >>>> >>>> This spec is PR #16652 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16652>. >>>> Thank you to everyone that has discussed this in community syncs or >>>> reviewed the design doc and PR! >>>> >>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours: >>>> >>>> [ ] +1: Adopt the expressions spec >>>> [ ] +0: . . . >>>> [ ] -1: Do not add the spec because . . . >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ryan >>>> >>>
