+1 (non binding) Regards JB
On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 11:20 PM Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I’d like to vote on the spec changes in PR 12841. This is a small change that > makes handling default values for structs much easier. Initially, we allowed > both a struct and its fields to have default values, but the values could > conflict. For instance, ADD COLUMN point struct<x int default 0, y int > default 0> default struct(-1, -1). > > The fix is to always track default values at the field level and allow only > null or null-null for the struct level defaults. That makes the feature more > predictable because the struct’s default never needs to be modified or have > field-level changes applied (i.e. removing field y or adding field z). > > In addition, I want to mention that this is not a one-way decision. We can > always allow the struct-level default to differ later, if we have use cases > in which a missing struct needs to have a different default than missing > fields. > > Please vote in the next 72 hours: > > [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns > > Thanks, > > Ryan
