+1 (non-binding) чт, 25 июн. 2026 г., 16:20 Manu Zhang <[email protected]>:
> +1 (non-binding). I'm really excited about the use cases it can unblock. > > Thanks, > Manu > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 1:27 PM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> Went over it, it seems a nice elegant definition. >> Thanks >> Szehon >> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 9:00 PM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 7:26 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (binding) >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 3:52 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to start a vote to adopt the new expressions spec. This spec >>>>> defines the minimal structure and behavior of expressions >>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VthBz0S2I39TeQM8oiF9_gSPQu_gHAjWXvdFpv0QqDk/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.54u4q3416qx8> >>>>> that Iceberg formats need to store and exchange. This is intended to clean >>>>> up expressions used in the REST catalog spec (exchanging query filters) >>>>> and >>>>> to enable new use cases that require expressions to be stored in metadata, >>>>> including expression defaults (`current_timestamp()`) and `CHECK` >>>>> constraints (`col < 360.0`). >>>>> >>>>> This spec is PR #16652 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16652>. >>>>> Thank you to everyone that has discussed this in community syncs or >>>>> reviewed the design doc and PR! >>>>> >>>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours: >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1: Adopt the expressions spec >>>>> [ ] +0: . . . >>>>> [ ] -1: Do not add the spec because . . . >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Ryan >>>>> >>>>
