Re: [VOTE][Format] Extend Flight Location URI Semantics

+1 (non-binding) Thanks for putting this together Matt. Joel On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 1:39 PM Matt Topol wrote: > Hey All, > > I would like to propose extending the semantics for Flight RPC > Location URI messages as documented in a PR [1] currently filed on the > main Arrow Repo. > > Previous d

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Arrow PMC chair: Neil Richardson

Thanks for all your work Andy, and congrats Neal! On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 2:30 PM Nic Crane wrote: > Congrats Neal! > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2024, 16:36 Bryce Mecum, wrote: > > > Congratulations Neal! > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 4:28 AM Andrew Lamb > wrote: > > > > > > I am pleased to announce t

Re: [VOTE][Go] Release Apache Arrow Go 18.0.0 RC0

+1 (non-binding) Verified with: go version go1.23.1 darwin/arm64 On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:27 AM David Li wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Tested on Debian bookworm/x86_64 > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024, at 10:58, Dewey Dunnington wrote: > > +1! (binding) > > > > I ran `dev/release/verify_rc.sh 18.0.0 0` on

Re: [VOTE] Split Go release process

+1 (non-binding) On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 2:49 PM Uwe L. Korn wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024, at 3:04 PM, Joris Van den Bossche wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 at 09:56, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> > >> +1 (binding) > >> > >> Le 26/08/2024 à 04:37, Sutou Kouhei

Re: [DISCUSS] Split Go release process

This all looks good to me, and I'm happy to review/help with any parts of the migration as well. Thanks, Joel On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 4:16 PM Matt Topol wrote: > > Based on 6., users need to change their import paths on > > upgrade whether we keep using apache/arrow or we use new > > apache/arr

Re: [VOTE][Format] Bool8 Canonical Extension Type

sh...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > &

[VOTE][Format] Bool8 Canonical Extension Type

Hello Devs, I would like to propose a new canonical extension type: Bool8 The prior mailing list discussion thread can be found at [1]. The format documentation change can be found at [2]. A copy of the text is included in this email. A Go implementation can be found at [3]. A C++/Python implemen

Re: [DISCUSS] 8-bit Boolean Canonical Extension Type

ed to equal status with the 1-bit type. > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 2:33 PM Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > > > Le 22/07/2024 à 21:25, Joel Lubinitsky a écrit : > > > > > > If Canonical Extensions had existed at the time, I think there's a > chance > >

Re: [VOTE][Format] Opaque canonical extension type

+1 (non-binding) Go implementation LGTM On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 5:12 AM Raúl Cumplido wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Format change looks good to me. I haven't reviewed the individual > implementations. > > Thanks David for leading this. > > El mié, 24 jul 2024 a las 10:51, Joris Van den Bossche > ()

Re: [DISCUSS] 8-bit Boolean Canonical Extension Type

>> I think it's worth saying here that Arrow-producing components > should > > > >>> still > > > >>>> by default emit Booleans in the standard bit-packed Arrow layout. > This > > > >>>> proposed bool8 canonical extension t

Re: [DISCUSS] 8-bit Boolean Canonical Extension Type

L28-L37 > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 11:25 AM Antoine Pitrou > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Joel, > > > > > > This looks good to me on the principle. Can you split the spec and the > > > implementation(s) into separate PRs? > >

[DISCUSS] 8-bit Boolean Canonical Extension Type

Hi Arrow devs, I'm working on adding an extension type for 8-bit booleans, and wanted to start a discussion about it here because it could be valuable to others if adopted as a canonical extension type. The native implementation of the Boolean type uses 1 bit to encode each value, enabling a very

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Arrow ADBC 12 - RC0

Hi David, I ran the new Python wheels through some code I had been working on and started getting memory violations. I just filed an issue [1] with a minimal repro. It doesn't seem that it was introduced by a change in this release, as it reproduces with 0.11.0 as well. [1] https://github.com/apa

Re: [VOTE] Add new info codes and options keys to ADBC specification

The vote passes with 4 binding, 2 non-binding +1 votes. Thanks everyone! On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 2:23 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 (non binding) > > It sounds good to me. Maybe with to update documentation ? > > Thanks > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024

Re: [VOTE] Add new info codes and options keys to ADBC specification

E] Add new info codes and options keys to ADBC specification" > on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 15:39:33 -, > Joel Lubinitsky wrote: > > > Update on this: > > > > I've removed ADBC_INFO_VENDOR_READ_ONLY from the proposal. The change is > reflected in this commi

Re: [VOTE] Add new info codes and options keys to ADBC specification

ption already exists via ConnectionGet/SetOptions, so defining it on the driver isn't helpful. [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/pull/1649/commits/a52a4fa16e6b740392d3617751e28f044f1a8325 [2]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/pull/1649 Thanks, Joel On 2024/04/03 11:01:13 Joel

Re: [VOTE] Bulk ingestion support for Flight SQL (vote #2)

llo, > > Joel Lubinitsky has proposed adding bulk ingestion support to Arrow Flight > SQL [1]. This provides a path for uploading an Arrow dataset to a Flight > SQL server to create or append to a table, without having to know the > specifics of the SQL or Substrait support

[VOTE] Add new info codes and options keys to ADBC specification

Hello, I would like to propose a change to the ADBC specification that introduces 5 new standard info codes and formalizes 3 existing option keys. The info codes being introduced are: - ADBC_INFO_VENDOR_READ_ONLY 3 - ADBC_INFO_VENDOR_SQL 4 - ADBC_INFO_VENDOR_SUBSTRAIT 5 - ADBC_INFO_VENDOR_SUBSTRA

Re: [Format][ADBC] GetObjects semantics for system objects

ating the driver behavior (especially only drivers in one language) as a > reference. > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, at 23:04, Joel Lubinitsky wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The ADBC spec does not currently define whether system > > catalogs/schemas/tables (e.g. information_schema.colum

[Format][ADBC] GetObjects semantics for system objects

Hi, The ADBC spec does not currently define whether system catalogs/schemas/tables (e.g. information_schema.columns, sqlite_master, etc) should be included in the result of ConnectionGetObjects. A survey of existing driver implementations such as sqlite and postgresql indicates that the current c

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer Joel Lubinitsky

on, Apr 1, 2024 at 1:16 PM Bryce Mecum wrote: > > > >> Congrats, Joel! > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 6:59 AM Matt Topol > wrote: > >> > > >> > On behalf of the Arrow PMC, I'm happy to announce that Joel Lubinitsky > >> h

Re: [VOTE] Protocol for Dissociated Arrow IPC Transports

+1 to the dissociated transports proposal On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 11:14 AM David Li wrote: > +1 from me as before > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024, at 18:06, Matt Topol wrote: > >> There is a word doc with no implementation or PR. I think there could > > be an implementation / PR. > > > > In the word

Re: [VOTE] Stateless prepared statements in FlightSQL

+1 (non-binding) On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:51 AM James Duong wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks for the work on this Adam and Andrew! > > Get Outlook for Android > > From: David Li > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 8:40:10 AM > To: dev@

[Format][ADBC] Adding Driver Info Codes to ADBC Spec

PR [1] open with more details. Thanks, Joel Lubinitsky [0]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/1650 [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/pull/1649

Re: [VOTE] Flight RPC: add 'fallback' URI scheme

thout an explicit server location (unless both Flight > > servers > > >>> are > > >>> >> > hosted under the same port?). So the "+" proposal seems a bit > > weird. > > >>> >> > > > >>>

Re: [VOTE] Explicit session management for Flight RPC

+1 On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 1:07 PM Andrew Lamb wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 1:46 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:38 PM David Li wrote: > > > > > > Paul Nienaber would like to propose explicit session management for >

Re: [DISCUSS] Flight RPC: add 'fallback' URI scheme

alled). > > In practice the ADBC/JDBC drivers just scan the list left to right and try > each endpoint in turn for lack of a better heuristic. > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024, at 14:28, Joel Lubinitsky wrote: > > Thanks for proposing this David. > > > > I think the abilit

Re: [DISCUSS] Flight RPC: add 'fallback' URI scheme

Thanks for proposing this David. I think the ability to include the Flight RPC service itself in the list of endpoints from which data can be fetched is a helpful addition. The current choice of name for the URI (arrow-flight-fallback://) seems to imply that there is an order of precedence that s

Re: [VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental

d which got some people > confused > > >> > about > > >> > > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the > current > > >> > > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol > > >> extensions > > >> > &g

[DISCUSS] Expectations or Standards for ADBC Resource Utilization

ry, storage, or other resource usage for ADBC drivers? If not, should there be? Thanks, Joel Lubinitsky [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/1327 [2] https://github.com/snowflakedb/gosnowflake/blob/master/bind_uploader.go#L21 [3] https://github.com/snowflakedb/snowflake-connector-pytho

Re: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental

The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked experimental as well. Would this include changes to any of those? On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon wrote: > we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we consider it > stable > > +1 (not binding) > > Laurent > > O

Re: [DISCUSS][Flight SQL] Adding Ingest Support for Flight SQL

might have. Context on certain details of the implementation can be found in the discussion [2] in the arrow-adbc repo. Thanks, Joel Lubinitsky [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/38256 [2] https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/1107 On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:09 PM Joel Lubi wrote: >