+1 (binding) On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 1:03 AM John Zhuge <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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 >
