Hooray!
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:08 AM David Li wrote:
> The PR is now merged:
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/commit/3ce40143f8a836df058ec5fe1b29d9da5ede169d
>
> Thanks all!
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2022, at 18:15, David Li wrote:
> > The vote passes with 5 binding votes and 7 non-binding votes.
The PR is now merged:
https://github.com/apache/arrow/commit/3ce40143f8a836df058ec5fe1b29d9da5ede169d
Thanks all!
On Sat, Sep 10, 2022, at 18:15, David Li wrote:
> The vote passes with 5 binding votes and 7 non-binding votes. Thanks all!
>
> I will rebase the PR and ensure CI passes before mergi
The vote passes with 5 binding votes and 7 non-binding votes. Thanks all!
I will rebase the PR and ensure CI passes before merging.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022, at 16:14, Wes McKinney wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 9:12 PM Jacques Nadeau wrote:
>>
>> My vote continues to be +1
>>
>> On
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 9:12 PM Jacques Nadeau wrote:
>
> My vote continues to be +1
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 11:44 AM Neal Richardson
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Neal
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:15 PM Ashish wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (non-binding)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at
My vote continues to be +1
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 11:44 AM Neal Richardson
wrote:
> +1
>
> Neal
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:15 PM Ashish wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 9:41 AM Gavin Ray wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, so that's what "non-binding" means in vote threads
> > >
+1
Neal
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:15 PM Ashish wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 9:41 AM Gavin Ray wrote:
>
> > Oh, so that's what "non-binding" means in vote threads
> > Those threads make a lot more sense now, thanks for the heads-up =)
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 12:31
+1 (non-binding)
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 9:41 AM Gavin Ray wrote:
> Oh, so that's what "non-binding" means in vote threads
> Those threads make a lot more sense now, thanks for the heads-up =)
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 12:31 PM David Li wrote:
>
> > Non-binding votes are always welcome and enco
Oh, so that's what "non-binding" means in vote threads
Those threads make a lot more sense now, thanks for the heads-up =)
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 12:31 PM David Li wrote:
> Non-binding votes are always welcome and encouraged! Was just trying to
> make sure we have the minimum 3 binding votes her
Non-binding votes are always welcome and encouraged! Was just trying to make
sure we have the minimum 3 binding votes here but it turns out I can't count
and I make three.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022, at 12:14, Gavin Ray wrote:
> If non-PMC can vote, I'll also give a huge +1
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1
If non-PMC can vote, I'll also give a huge +1
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 11:34 AM Matthew Topol
wrote:
> I'm not PMC but i'll give a +1 (non-binding) vote. I like the idea of
> integrating Substrait plans into Flight SQL if possible and it aligns
> with the arrow-adbc work.
>
> On Thu, Sep 8 2022 at
I'm not PMC but i'll give a +1 (non-binding) vote. I like the idea of
integrating Substrait plans into Flight SQL if possible and it aligns
with the arrow-adbc work.
On Thu, Sep 8 2022 at 11:31:59 AM -0400, David Li
wrote:
My vote: +1 (binding)
Are any other PMC members available to take a
My vote: +1 (binding)
Are any other PMC members available to take a look?
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022, at 09:18, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Fair enough. For the record, my main concern with ad-hoc conventions
> such as "number of milliseconds expressed as an integer" is the poor
> usability and the poten
Fair enough. For the record, my main concern with ad-hoc conventions
such as "number of milliseconds expressed as an integer" is the poor
usability and the potential for confusion (not to mention that sometimes
the need for a higher precision can lead to add another set of APIs, but
that's u
Absent further comments on this I would rather avoid adding a potentially
breaking (even if likely compatible) change to the schema of this endpoint, if
that's acceptable. I don't think a millisecond timeout is all too different
from floating-point seconds (especially at the scale of network RPC
We could add a new type code to the union. Presumably consumers would just
error on or ignore such values (the libraries just hand the Arrow array to the
application, so it's up to the application what to do with an unknown type
code). (And for a new consumer talking to an old server, the new ty
Le 06/09/2022 à 17:21, David Li a écrit :
Thanks Antoine!
I've updated the PR (except for the comment about timeout units, since SqlInfo
values can't be doubles/floats unless we change the schema there)
Can we change the schema in a backwards-compatible way?
Thanks Antoine!
I've updated the PR (except for the comment about timeout units, since SqlInfo
values can't be doubles/floats unless we change the schema there)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022, at 09:24, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the delay. I took the time to read the protobuf definitions
>
Hi,
Sorry for the delay. I took the time to read the protobuf definitions
again and posted a few (relatively minor) comments in the PR.
On the principle the spec looks sound so I'm giving this a +1 (binding).
Regards
Antoine.
Le 01/09/2022 à 01:51, David Li a écrit :
Hello,
I am propos
+1 (non-binding)
--
James Henderson
XTDB Development Manager at JUXT
Email j...@juxt.pro
Website https://juxt.pro
[image: photo]
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 9:49 PM Jacques Nadeau wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:15 PM Larry White wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM Vinicius Fraga
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (non-binding)
> > >
> > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, 20:51 Da
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:15 PM Larry White wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM Vinicius Fraga wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, 20:51 David Li, wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am proposing to extend the Flight SQL specificati
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM Vinicius Fraga wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, 20:51 David Li, wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am proposing to extend the Flight SQL specification with the following
> > features:
> >
> > - Support for queries using Substrait [1]
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, 20:51 David Li, wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am proposing to extend the Flight SQL specification with the following
> features:
>
> - Support for queries using Substrait [1]
> - Explicit transaction RPCs
> - Explicit cancellation of distributed queries
>
> The prop
23 matches
Mail list logo
