The only drawback of FLBA(16) is breaking consistency. Perhaps we should consider making FLBA(4) valid physical for IntType(32) and FLBA(8) valid physical for IntType(64). For most readers this shouldn't be much of a change.
On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 2:16 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 05:57:57 -0400 > Andrew Lamb <andrewlam...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > From a Rust perspective, I don't see any significant fundamental > difference > > between Fixed Length Binary(16) and an Int128. Therefore I also favor > using > > the existing type rather than adding a new one. > > > > The fact we already have optimized readers/writers for Fixed Length > Binary > > means that it would likely be less work to reuse the existing types > > rather than support a new i128 type. > > > > One potential issue with using Fixed Length Binary would be that it is > not > > consistent with the existing physical types (Int32/Int64/Float/Double, > etc) > > but I don't see that as a deal breaker. > > Especially as we already have FLOAT16 defined as a logical type over > FLBA(2). > > Regards > > Antoine. > > >
