Agreed that it makes sense not to focus on in-place updating for this
proposal. I’m not even sure it’s a great fit as a “general purpose” Arrow
protocol, because of all the assumptions and restrictions required as you
noted.
I took another look at the proposal and don’t think there’s anything
+1 (binding)
On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 8:08 AM vin jake wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 7:33 PM Andrew Lamb wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > As we have discussed[1][2] I would like to vote on the proposal to
> > create a new Apache Top Level Project for DataFusion. The text of the
>
The proposal looks good to me. Thanks!
On Fri, Mar 1, 2024, at 20:11, Adam Curtis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We would like to support prepared statements with bind parameters with
> a stateless service. This was discussed previously on the mailing list
> [1]. The original ticket outlining the proposed
+1 (binding)
On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 7:33 PM Andrew Lamb wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As we have discussed[1][2] I would like to vote on the proposal to
> create a new Apache Top Level Project for DataFusion. The text of the
> proposed resolution and background document is copy/pasted below
>
> If the
+1 (binding)
El sáb, 2 mar 2024, 7:28, Jean-Baptiste Onofré escribió:
> +1 (non binding)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:33 PM Andrew Lamb wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > As we have discussed[1][2] I would like to vote on the proposal to
> > create a new Apache Top Level Project
