Hi everyone, Bumping this thread to see if anyone has any additional feedback or thoughts on format PR #51248 [1].
If there are no further comments or objections, we will start a vote soon. Thanks! [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/51248 On 2026-09-02 20:51 UTC Mandukhai Alimaa wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Following the recent addition and subsequent refinement of the FILE > LogicalType to the Parquet format specification [1, 2] and the > corresponding Parquet C++ > reader/writer support currently underway [3], we (@rok and I) would > like to propose defining a matching Canonical Extension Type for the > Apache Arrow specification: arrow.file. > > Motivation > As storage formats standardize file-level references, Arrow needs a > canonical in-memory representation to preserve these semantics across > IPC streams, the C Data Interface, Arrow Flight, and language > bindings. Without a canonical extension type, file fields lose their > semantic metadata during serialization. > > Proposed High-Level Design: > The intended design is to directly align with the finalized Parquet spec [4]. > > * Extension name: ``arrow.file``. > * Storage Type: StructType containing standard optional fields: > * ``uri`` (Utf8) > * ``offset`` (Int64) > * `` size`` (Int64) > * ``content_type`` (Utf8) > * `` checksum`` (Utf8) > * ``inline`` (Binary) > > I have created a GitHub issue to track this [5]. Please share your > thoughts! Thanks! > > [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/585 > [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/603 > [3] https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/50891 > [4] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/LogicalTypes.md#file > [5] https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/51143 >
