+1 (nb) Best, Prashant Singh
On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 6:26 AM Russell Spitzer <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 >> >
