+1 (non-binding). Thanks for the clarification. On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 8:17 AM Alkis Evlogimenos via dev < [email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 5:08 PM Jia Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 07:21 Neelesh Salian <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > Thanks for this, Divjot. The clarification is super useful. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 10:27 Divjot Arora via dev < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote to adopt parquet-format PR 606 [1]. This > > PR > > > > specifies graceful handling > > > > for unrecognized logical/physical type combinations: in such cases, > the > > > > reader should drop the logical > > > > type annotation and associated stats for the column (i.e. only parse > > > based > > > > on the physical type). There > > > > are associated Java [2] and C++ [3] reference implementations, as > well > > > as a > > > > parquet-testing PR [4] > > > > to add a such a file. > > > > > > > > Please vote in the next 72 hours. > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Approve the proposed format change > > > > [ ] +0 No opinion > > > > [ ] -1 Do not approve (please provide specific reasons) > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Div > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/606 > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/3711 > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/50909 > > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/parquet-testing/pull/122 > > > > > > > > > >
