With 13 +1 votes and no -1 or +0, this passes. Thanks everyone! This should go in soon, we're just adding some examples and making slight clarifications to the wording.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 12:40 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025, 3:12 PM Anton Okolnychyi <aokolnyc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> The proposed V3 behavior would already be a lot more flexible than what >> most engines support in the industry today. It is also not covered by the >> SQL standard, so there is no need to overcomplicate the spec without actual >> use cases. >> >> - Anton >> >> ср, 23 квіт. 2025 р. о 10:27 Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> пише: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:39 AM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (binding) >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Fokko >>>> >>>> Op wo 23 apr 2025 om 03:08 schreef Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 4:42 AM 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> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
