+1 (binding) On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 1:12 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 > > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:03 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> 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 >> >
