alamb commented on pull request #9976: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/9976#issuecomment-817111476
@seddonm1 can you remind me again why adding a non-persisted field to each Rust `RecordBatch` (for example `RecordBatch::runtime_exension`) was rejected. I can't help thinking that implementing an accurate `input_filename` with all the data reorganization that can happen during plan time is going to require runtime (not just plan time) support. Sorry for muddying the waters, -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
