Re: [VOTE] Adopt the SQL UDF spec
Hi everyone, Thanks all for the votes and feedback. The vote passed with 8 +1s (4 bindings and 4 non-bindings) and no objections raised. We will proceed with adopting the SQL UDF specification. I will close the vote and move forward with merging the spec. Many thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion and review process, your feedback was incredibly valuable. Yufei On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 1:30 PM Péter Váry wrote: > +1 > > Prashant Singh ezt írta (időpont: 2026. febr. > 5., Cs, 16:47): > >> +1 (nb) >> >> Best, >> Prashant Singh >> >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 6:26 AM Russell Spitzer >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 1:03 AM John Zhuge wrote: >>> +1 (non-binding) On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 10:59 AM Steven Wu wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 1:12 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:03 PM Yufei Gu >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> With the discussions from the earlier threads largely wrapped up, I >>> would like to raise a vote to adopt the SQL UDF specification. >>> >>> *What is included?* >>> The SQL UDF spec defines a common way to describe and manage user >>> defined functions across catalogs and engines. It covers how functions >>> are >>> identified, their parameters and types, and basic metadata for >>> versioning >>> and compatibility. >>> >>> *What does adopting this spec mean?* >>> Adopting this spec means the community agrees on the current design >>> and will keep it compatible going forward. It doesn’t require immediate >>> implementation or enabling UDFs by default, but sets a stable foundation >>> for future work. Any breaking changes later would follow the normal spec >>> evolution process. >>> >>> Many thanks to everyone who contributed feedback, reviews, and >>> design discussions to help shape this spec. The amount of iteration and >>> cross project input has been invaluable. >>> >>> Related links: >>> 1. Dev mailing discussion: >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/flcmx3xgqp7mccqt66vcpmdy11rk5pbo >>> 2. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14117. >>> >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours. >>> >>> [ ] +1 Adopt the SQL UDF specification >>> [ ] +0 >>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt at this time, with reason >>> >>> Yufei >>> >> -- John Zhuge >>>
Re: [VOTE] Adopt the SQL UDF spec
+1 Prashant Singh ezt írta (időpont: 2026. febr. 5., Cs, 16:47): > +1 (nb) > > Best, > Prashant Singh > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 6:26 AM Russell Spitzer > wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 1:03 AM John Zhuge wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 10:59 AM Steven Wu wrote: >>> +1 (binding) On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 1:12 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 > > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:03 PM Yufei Gu wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> With the discussions from the earlier threads largely wrapped up, I >> would like to raise a vote to adopt the SQL UDF specification. >> >> *What is included?* >> The SQL UDF spec defines a common way to describe and manage user >> defined functions across catalogs and engines. It covers how functions >> are >> identified, their parameters and types, and basic metadata for versioning >> and compatibility. >> >> *What does adopting this spec mean?* >> Adopting this spec means the community agrees on the current design >> and will keep it compatible going forward. It doesn’t require immediate >> implementation or enabling UDFs by default, but sets a stable foundation >> for future work. Any breaking changes later would follow the normal spec >> evolution process. >> >> Many thanks to everyone who contributed feedback, reviews, and design >> discussions to help shape this spec. The amount of iteration and cross >> project input has been invaluable. >> >> Related links: >> 1. Dev mailing discussion: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/flcmx3xgqp7mccqt66vcpmdy11rk5pbo >> 2. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14117. >> >> Please vote within the next 72 hours. >> >> [ ] +1 Adopt the SQL UDF specification >> [ ] +0 >> [ ] -1 Do not adopt at this time, with reason >> >> Yufei >> > >>> >>> -- >>> John Zhuge >>> >>
Re: [VOTE] Adopt the SQL UDF spec
+1 (nb) Best, Prashant Singh On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 6:26 AM Russell Spitzer wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 1:03 AM John Zhuge wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 10:59 AM Steven Wu wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 1:12 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> wrote: >>> +1 Regards JB On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:03 PM Yufei Gu wrote: > Hi everyone, > > With the discussions from the earlier threads largely wrapped up, I > would like to raise a vote to adopt the SQL UDF specification. > > *What is included?* > The SQL UDF spec defines a common way to describe and manage user > defined functions across catalogs and engines. It covers how functions are > identified, their parameters and types, and basic metadata for versioning > and compatibility. > > *What does adopting this spec mean?* > Adopting this spec means the community agrees on the current design > and will keep it compatible going forward. It doesn’t require immediate > implementation or enabling UDFs by default, but sets a stable foundation > for future work. Any breaking changes later would follow the normal spec > evolution process. > > Many thanks to everyone who contributed feedback, reviews, and design > discussions to help shape this spec. The amount of iteration and cross > project input has been invaluable. > > Related links: > 1. Dev mailing discussion: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/flcmx3xgqp7mccqt66vcpmdy11rk5pbo > 2. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14117. > > Please vote within the next 72 hours. > > [ ] +1 Adopt the SQL UDF specification > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 Do not adopt at this time, with reason > > Yufei > >> >> -- >> John Zhuge >> >
Re: [VOTE] Adopt the SQL UDF spec
+1 (binding) On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 1:03 AM John Zhuge wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 10:59 AM Steven Wu wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 1:12 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:03 PM Yufei Gu wrote: >>> Hi everyone, With the discussions from the earlier threads largely wrapped up, I would like to raise a vote to adopt the SQL UDF specification. *What is included?* The SQL UDF spec defines a common way to describe and manage user defined functions across catalogs and engines. It covers how functions are identified, their parameters and types, and basic metadata for versioning and compatibility. *What does adopting this spec mean?* Adopting this spec means the community agrees on the current design and will keep it compatible going forward. It doesn’t require immediate implementation or enabling UDFs by default, but sets a stable foundation for future work. Any breaking changes later would follow the normal spec evolution process. Many thanks to everyone who contributed feedback, reviews, and design discussions to help shape this spec. The amount of iteration and cross project input has been invaluable. Related links: 1. Dev mailing discussion: https://lists.apache.org/thread/flcmx3xgqp7mccqt66vcpmdy11rk5pbo 2. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14117. Please vote within the next 72 hours. [ ] +1 Adopt the SQL UDF specification [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not adopt at this time, with reason Yufei >>> > > -- > John Zhuge >
Re: [VOTE] Adopt the SQL UDF spec
+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 10:59 AM Steven Wu wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 1:12 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:03 PM Yufei Gu wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> With the discussions from the earlier threads largely wrapped up, I >>> would like to raise a vote to adopt the SQL UDF specification. >>> >>> *What is included?* >>> The SQL UDF spec defines a common way to describe and manage user >>> defined functions across catalogs and engines. It covers how functions are >>> identified, their parameters and types, and basic metadata for versioning >>> and compatibility. >>> >>> *What does adopting this spec mean?* >>> Adopting this spec means the community agrees on the current design and >>> will keep it compatible going forward. It doesn’t require immediate >>> implementation or enabling UDFs by default, but sets a stable foundation >>> for future work. Any breaking changes later would follow the normal spec >>> evolution process. >>> >>> Many thanks to everyone who contributed feedback, reviews, and design >>> discussions to help shape this spec. The amount of iteration and cross >>> project input has been invaluable. >>> >>> Related links: >>> 1. Dev mailing discussion: >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/flcmx3xgqp7mccqt66vcpmdy11rk5pbo >>> 2. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14117. >>> >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours. >>> >>> [ ] +1 Adopt the SQL UDF specification >>> [ ] +0 >>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt at this time, with reason >>> >>> Yufei >>> >> -- John Zhuge
Re: [VOTE] Adopt the SQL UDF spec
+1 (binding) On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 1:12 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 > > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:03 PM Yufei Gu wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> With the discussions from the earlier threads largely wrapped up, I would >> like to raise a vote to adopt the SQL UDF specification. >> >> *What is included?* >> The SQL UDF spec defines a common way to describe and manage user defined >> functions across catalogs and engines. It covers how functions are >> identified, their parameters and types, and basic metadata for versioning >> and compatibility. >> >> *What does adopting this spec mean?* >> Adopting this spec means the community agrees on the current design and >> will keep it compatible going forward. It doesn’t require immediate >> implementation or enabling UDFs by default, but sets a stable foundation >> for future work. Any breaking changes later would follow the normal spec >> evolution process. >> >> Many thanks to everyone who contributed feedback, reviews, and design >> discussions to help shape this spec. The amount of iteration and cross >> project input has been invaluable. >> >> Related links: >> 1. Dev mailing discussion: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/flcmx3xgqp7mccqt66vcpmdy11rk5pbo >> 2. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14117. >> >> Please vote within the next 72 hours. >> >> [ ] +1 Adopt the SQL UDF specification >> [ ] +0 >> [ ] -1 Do not adopt at this time, with reason >> >> Yufei >> >
Re: [VOTE] Adopt the SQL UDF spec
+1 Regards JB On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:03 PM Yufei Gu wrote: > Hi everyone, > > With the discussions from the earlier threads largely wrapped up, I would > like to raise a vote to adopt the SQL UDF specification. > > *What is included?* > The SQL UDF spec defines a common way to describe and manage user defined > functions across catalogs and engines. It covers how functions are > identified, their parameters and types, and basic metadata for versioning > and compatibility. > > *What does adopting this spec mean?* > Adopting this spec means the community agrees on the current design and > will keep it compatible going forward. It doesn’t require immediate > implementation or enabling UDFs by default, but sets a stable foundation > for future work. Any breaking changes later would follow the normal spec > evolution process. > > Many thanks to everyone who contributed feedback, reviews, and design > discussions to help shape this spec. The amount of iteration and cross > project input has been invaluable. > > Related links: > 1. Dev mailing discussion: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/flcmx3xgqp7mccqt66vcpmdy11rk5pbo > 2. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14117. > > Please vote within the next 72 hours. > > [ ] +1 Adopt the SQL UDF specification > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 Do not adopt at this time, with reason > > Yufei >
Re: [VOTE] Adopt the SQL UDF spec
+1 I've been through the spec a couple of times now and I think it is looking good. I'm sure that we'll find things that can be made more clear, but overall it is reasonable and supportable. Thanks for shepherding this, Yufei! On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:53 AM huaxin gao wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:03 AM Yufei Gu wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> With the discussions from the earlier threads largely wrapped up, I would >> like to raise a vote to adopt the SQL UDF specification. >> >> *What is included?* >> The SQL UDF spec defines a common way to describe and manage user defined >> functions across catalogs and engines. It covers how functions are >> identified, their parameters and types, and basic metadata for versioning >> and compatibility. >> >> *What does adopting this spec mean?* >> Adopting this spec means the community agrees on the current design and >> will keep it compatible going forward. It doesn’t require immediate >> implementation or enabling UDFs by default, but sets a stable foundation >> for future work. Any breaking changes later would follow the normal spec >> evolution process. >> >> Many thanks to everyone who contributed feedback, reviews, and design >> discussions to help shape this spec. The amount of iteration and cross >> project input has been invaluable. >> >> Related links: >> 1. Dev mailing discussion: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/flcmx3xgqp7mccqt66vcpmdy11rk5pbo >> 2. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14117. >> >> Please vote within the next 72 hours. >> >> [ ] +1 Adopt the SQL UDF specification >> [ ] +0 >> [ ] -1 Do not adopt at this time, with reason >> >> Yufei >> >
Re: [VOTE] Adopt the SQL UDF spec
+1 (non-binding) On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:03 AM Yufei Gu wrote: > Hi everyone, > > With the discussions from the earlier threads largely wrapped up, I would > like to raise a vote to adopt the SQL UDF specification. > > *What is included?* > The SQL UDF spec defines a common way to describe and manage user defined > functions across catalogs and engines. It covers how functions are > identified, their parameters and types, and basic metadata for versioning > and compatibility. > > *What does adopting this spec mean?* > Adopting this spec means the community agrees on the current design and > will keep it compatible going forward. It doesn’t require immediate > implementation or enabling UDFs by default, but sets a stable foundation > for future work. Any breaking changes later would follow the normal spec > evolution process. > > Many thanks to everyone who contributed feedback, reviews, and design > discussions to help shape this spec. The amount of iteration and cross > project input has been invaluable. > > Related links: > 1. Dev mailing discussion: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/flcmx3xgqp7mccqt66vcpmdy11rk5pbo > 2. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14117. > > Please vote within the next 72 hours. > > [ ] +1 Adopt the SQL UDF specification > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 Do not adopt at this time, with reason > > Yufei >
[VOTE] Adopt the SQL UDF spec
Hi everyone, With the discussions from the earlier threads largely wrapped up, I would like to raise a vote to adopt the SQL UDF specification. *What is included?* The SQL UDF spec defines a common way to describe and manage user defined functions across catalogs and engines. It covers how functions are identified, their parameters and types, and basic metadata for versioning and compatibility. *What does adopting this spec mean?* Adopting this spec means the community agrees on the current design and will keep it compatible going forward. It doesn’t require immediate implementation or enabling UDFs by default, but sets a stable foundation for future work. Any breaking changes later would follow the normal spec evolution process. Many thanks to everyone who contributed feedback, reviews, and design discussions to help shape this spec. The amount of iteration and cross project input has been invaluable. Related links: 1. Dev mailing discussion: https://lists.apache.org/thread/flcmx3xgqp7mccqt66vcpmdy11rk5pbo 2. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14117. Please vote within the next 72 hours. [ ] +1 Adopt the SQL UDF specification [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not adopt at this time, with reason Yufei
