+1 (binding) In <cajpuwmauhk4vdqd0lngvwgbmlj+edsmg9a3s6d4nnmcwsv2...@mail.gmail.com> "[VOTE] Add Decimal::bitWidth field to Schema.fbs for forward compatibility" on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:35:04 -0500, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > As discussed on the mailing list [1] I would like to add a "bit width" > field to our Decimal metadata to allow for supporting different > Decimal physical sizes other than 128-bit (where 32- and 64-bit > representations are relatively common) without requiring that we add a > new value to the Type enum on Schema.fbs, which would be rather > unsightly. > > The PR with the new field is at [2]. We may make modifications to the > language in comments but this vote is whether to accept the addition > of this field. > > For clarity, this change is non-breaking and fully backwards > compatible. The field ensures that current libraries will be able to > determine if a future library version has sent data that uses a bit > width other than 128. > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > [ ] +1 Accept addition of Decimal::bitWidth Flatbuffers field > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 Do not accept addition because... > > [1]: > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r97eecb373f5ea5f1c65a6f061c75af1ef7ac460f722f4c98a5c70dc2%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E > [2]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7321
