+1 On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 7:31 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> +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 >
