+1 (binding) On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:17 PM Weston Pace <weston.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would like > to submit for a vote. > > --- > Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property. This > has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a timestamp > without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted it > to be a LocalDateTime. > > This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and assert > that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as > LocalDateTime. > > Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a discussion > on the semantics) please refer to [3] > --- > > For sample arguments for/against see [2]. For a summary of some of > the discussion in [1] and a detailed discussion about the different > temporal concepts see [3]. A related straw poll (and eventual vote) > will be sent regarding treatment of instants as potential Arrow types. > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > [ ] +1 Update comments in schema.fbs to assert the above > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 Do not make any change > > [1]: > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8216e5de3efd2935e3907ad9bd20ce07e430952f84de69b36337e5eb%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E > [2]: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDAuxEDVo3YxZx20fGUGqQxi3aoss7TJ-TzOUjaoZk8/edit?usp=sharing > [3]: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QDwX4ypfNvESc2ywcT1ygaf2Y1R8SmkpifMV7gpJdBI/edit?usp=sharing >
