+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 5:27 PM Micah Kornfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Wednesday, September 9, 2026, Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 5:27 AM Stevo Mitrić via dev < > > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 1:10 PM Divjot Arora via dev < > > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote for to adopt parquet-format PR 601 [1]. > > This > > > > PR allows > > > > the TimestampType logical type annotation to annotate > > > > FIXED_LEN_BYTE_ARRAY(12) > > > > columns in order to support the full SQL timestamp range in > > nanoseconds. > > > > All three time > > > > units (millis/micros/nanos) are supported for such columns. There are > > > Java > > > > [2] and C++ [3] > > > > reference implementations (the C++ one includes Parquet to Arrow type > > > > conversion as well), > > > > as well as a parquet-testing PR [4] to add a file with such columns. > > > > > > > > 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/601 > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/3680 > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/50916 > > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/parquet-testing/pull/123 > > > > > > > > > >
