In the context of my PR trying to encode the consensus that records can't span page boundaries[1], Antoine brought up the excellent point[2] that the format[3] seems to use the terms "records" and "rows" to refer to the same concept.
I agree it would clarify the spec to use the same terminology throughout. Given there are several fields named `num_rows` I propose changing parquet.thrift to use the term "row" throughout. I can make another PR to do so if this seems like a good idea. Andrew (p.s the PR[1] is still waiting on some more review and merging :pray:) [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/244 [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/244#discussion_r1617320495 [3] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/src/main/thrift/parquet.thrift
