+1 (non-binding)
Regards
Venkata krishnan
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 1:29 AM Martijn Visser
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 1:06 PM Timo Walther wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Timo
> >
> >
> > On 28.01.25 11:56, Fabian Hüske wrote:
> > > +1 (binding) for this FLI
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 1:06 PM Timo Walther wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Thanks,
> Timo
>
>
> On 28.01.25 11:56, Fabian Hüske wrote:
> > +1 (binding) for this FLIP.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Fabian
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 2:36 AM Natea Eshetu Beshada
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1 (non-
+1 (binding)
Thanks,
Timo
On 28.01.25 11:56, Fabian Hüske wrote:
+1 (binding) for this FLIP.
Thank you,
Fabian
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 2:36 AM Natea Eshetu Beshada
wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 3:02 PM Alan Sheinberg
wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to start a vote on F
+1 (binding) for this FLIP.
Thank you,
Fabian
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 2:36 AM Natea Eshetu Beshada
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 3:02 PM Alan Sheinberg
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'd like to start a vote on FLIP-498 [1]. It proposes exposing
> > AsyncTableFunct
+1 (non-binding)
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 3:02 PM Alan Sheinberg
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to start a vote on FLIP-498 [1]. It proposes exposing
> AsyncTableFunction as a proper user defined function. The type already
> exists for Lookup Joins, but isn't usable as other UDFs. This FLIP
