+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 1:14 PM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 7:50 AM Péter Váry <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2026, 04:15 Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> +1 (binding) > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 8:51 PM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 (binding) > >>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2026, 6:50 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 (binding) > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 5:33 PM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> +1 (non-binding) > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2026, 5:15 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is a vote for the stats-only fields discussed in this thread. > The changes are in PR #18405. This change adds a `stats-fields` list that > assigns table field IDs so that stats for partition fields and expressions > like `to_lower_case` can be stored in the `content_stats` struct. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please vote within the next 72 hours. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [ ] +1 Add stats-only fields to the table spec > >>>>>> [ ] +0 > >>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not add stats-only fields because . . . >
