jacobmarble commented on code in PR #8658:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8658#discussion_r1341871140
##########
api/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/types/Types.java:
##########
@@ -48,6 +48,8 @@ private Types() {}
.put(TimeType.get().toString(), TimeType.get())
.put(TimestampType.withZone().toString(), TimestampType.withZone())
.put(TimestampType.withoutZone().toString(),
TimestampType.withoutZone())
+ .put(TimestampnsType.withZone().toString(),
TimestampnsType.withZone())
Review Comment:
@JFinis there are resolved comments in the doc, visible without being the
document owner, but you'll have to click the "open comment history" button to
see them.
The document history is not visible to anyone but the owner, so I've
attached PDFs at two stages: my original draft (7-sep-2023) and the doc as
understood at the last community sync (19-sep-2023).
[At the very end of the last community
sync](https://youtu.be/MIreG41AabI?t=3300), I understood that we had enough
consensus to start writing code.
[Nanosecond Timestamps in Apache Iceberg
7-sep-2023.pdf](https://github.com/apache/iceberg/files/12772864/Nanosecond.Timestamps.in.Apache.Iceberg.7-sep-2023.pdf)
[Nanosecond Timestamps in Apache Iceberg
19-sep-2023.pdf](https://github.com/apache/iceberg/files/12772865/Nanosecond.Timestamps.in.Apache.Iceberg.19-sep-2023.pdf)
> the design was to separate different timestamps through fields, not new
types
Help me out, where do you read that?
--
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
