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 <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > 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? > >> > >> >
