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 11:34 AM Matthew Topol <m...@voltrondata.com.invalid> > 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 11:31:59 AM -0400, David Li <lidav...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > 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 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 unlikely to be the case here :-)). >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Antoine. >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 07/09/2022 à 14:21, David Li a écrit : >> >>> 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 RPCs). >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2022, at 12:44, David Li wrote: >> >>>> 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 type code would just never come up, so the only >> >>>> issue >> >>>> would be if it strictly validates the returned schema.) >> >>>> >> >>>> If there's support, I can make this revision as well. >> >>>> >> >>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2022, at 12:37, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >>>>> 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? >> >>
