+1
On 7/1/22 04:20, David Li wrote:
Hello,
This vote is to determine if the Arrow PMC is in favor of accepting the
donation of the Flight SQL JDBC driver.
This process was deemed necessary since there was significant development prior
to opening the pull request. This was discussed in a pre
Ah - somehow I didn't think of that. Yes, we should just implement it in the
same way prepared statements are already implemented.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022, at 19:42, Micah Kornfield wrote:
>>
>> It would also then be good to make explicit the statefulness of
>> connections in Flight SQL. While that
Great!
In
"Re: [question] Arrow C GLib conda package" on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:20:54
-0400,
Ivan Ogasawara wrote:
> arrow-c-glib is already on conda-forge!!
> https://github.com/conda-forge/arrow-c-glib-feedstock
>
> thanks @kou for the review!
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 1:28 PM Ivan O
>
> It would also then be good to make explicit the statefulness of
> connections in Flight SQL. While that is sort of an obvious constraint, it
> is at odds with how gRPC is usually used (especially in the presence of
> load balancing).
I'm not sure I understand where the statefulness requiremen
arrow-c-glib is already on conda-forge!!
https://github.com/conda-forge/arrow-c-glib-feedstock
thanks @kou for the review!
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 1:28 PM Ivan Ogasawara
wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> the PR is already ready for review:
> https://github.com/conda-forge/staged-recipes/pull/19427
> a
+1 (non-binding)
Em qui., 30 de jun. de 2022 às 18:44, José Almeida <
jose.alme...@simbioseventures.com> escreveu:
> +1
>
> Best,
> Jose Almeida
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:21 PM David Li wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > This vote is to determine if the Arrow PMC is in favor of accepting the
> > do
This is a bit of a tangent from the original discussion about
Substrait integration.
Flight SQL would definitely benefit from transaction RPC commands for
building bridge drivers. I'm also wondering if there should be an RPC call
to cancel a running query, as opposed to just having the client term
+1
Best,
Jose Almeida
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:21 PM David Li wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This vote is to determine if the Arrow PMC is in favor of accepting the
> donation of the Flight SQL JDBC driver.
>
> This process was deemed necessary since there was significant development
> prior to opening t
+1 (non-binding)
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:55 PM Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> +1
>
> > [2]:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/arrow-flight-sql-jdbc-driver.xml
>
> HTML version:
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/arrow-flight-sql-jdbc-driver.html
>
>
+1
> [2]:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/arrow-flight-sql-jdbc-driver.xml
HTML version:
https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/arrow-flight-sql-jdbc-driver.html
Could you also add this to
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk
Reviving this discussion: would people be interested in seeing a sketched-out
CommandSubstraitQuery et. al.?
Additionally, while working on ADBC, I realized: does Flight SQL need explicit
Commit/Rollback commands? This would presumably be necessary if we want to
build ODBC/JDBC drivers on top,
Hello,
This vote is to determine if the Arrow PMC is in favor of accepting the
donation of the Flight SQL JDBC driver.
This process was deemed necessary since there was significant development prior
to opening the pull request. This was discussed in a previous ML thread [1].
The outline of the
Hi,
Is there support for accessing Substrait protobuf Python classes (such as Plan)
from PyArrow? If not, how should such support be added? For example, should the
PyArrow build system pull in the Substrait repo as an external project and
build its protobuf Python classes, in a manner similar t
13 matches
Mail list logo
