Hi everyone, Thanks all for the votes and feedback.
The vote passed with 8 +1s (4 bindings and 4 non-bindings) and no objections raised. We will proceed with adopting the SQL UDF specification. I will close the vote and move forward with merging the spec. Many thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion and review process, your feedback was incredibly valuable. Yufei On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 1:30 PM Péter Váry <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > Prashant Singh <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. febr. > 5., Cs, 16:47): > >> +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 >>>> >>>
