I've prepended "[RESULT]" to the subject.
It's for easy to find the result e-mail.
In
"Re: [VOTE] Stateless prepared statements in FlightSQL" on Sun, 24 Mar 2024
13:04:36 -0400,
Adam C wrote:
> With 7 +1 votes and 0 -1 votes the proposal is approved.
22, 2024 at 2:39 AM Sutou Kouhei wrote:
>
> +1
>
> In
> "[VOTE] Stateless prepared statements in FlightSQL" on Wed, 20 Mar 2024
> 19:48:38 -0400,
> Adam C wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to propose a change to the FlightSQL spec
+1
In
"[VOTE] Stateless prepared statements in FlightSQL" on Wed, 20 Mar 2024
19:48:38 -0400,
Adam C wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose a change to the FlightSQL specification as
> originally described in this Github issue [1] by Andrew Lamb. The
> s
21, 2024 8:40:10 AM
> To: dev@arrow.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stateless prepared statements in FlightSQL
>
> +1
>
> Thank you Adam!
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, at 10:07, Andrew Lamb wrote:
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > I reviewed the spec proposal and t
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks for the work on this Adam and Andrew!
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
From: David Li
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 8:40:10 AM
To: dev@arrow.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stateless prepared statements in FlightS
+1
Regards
JB
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:48 AM Adam C wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose a change to the FlightSQL specification as
> originally described in this Github issue [1] by Andrew Lamb. The
> specification change would allow servers to support prepared
> statements with para
+1
Thank you Adam!
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, at 10:07, Andrew Lamb wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> I reviewed the spec proposal and the rust implementation and I think they
> look good to go. I am not as confident on the golang implementation, but
> the comments on the Go PR look like there are no objecti
+1 (binding)
I'm gonna give the Go impl another review and once over, but in general it
looks good and the Idea is sound.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 10:12 AM Andrew Lamb wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> I reviewed the spec proposal and the rust implementation and I think they
> look good to go. I am not as
+1 (binding)
I reviewed the spec proposal and the rust implementation and I think they
look good to go. I am not as confident on the golang implementation, but
the comments on the Go PR look like there are no objections.
Thank you for your work driving this forward
Andrew
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 a
Hello,
I would like to propose a change to the FlightSQL specification as
originally described in this Github issue [1] by Andrew Lamb. The
specification change would allow servers to support prepared
statements with parameters, without needing to manage state between
client requests.
There is a
10 matches
Mail list logo
