+1 (non binding) Thanks, Steve Zhang
> On Apr 22, 2025, at 1:41 PM, Prashant Singh <prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > Best, > Prashant Singh > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 2:55 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <etudenhoef...@apache.org > <mailto:etudenhoef...@apache.org>> wrote: >> +1 >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 7:31 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net >> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> wrote: >>> +1 (non binding) >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 11:20 PM Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com >>> <mailto: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
