+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 10:59 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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 >>> >> -- John Zhuge
