> """
> Readers need a simple mechanism to know whether they support all
> features they may encounter when reading a specific file.
> """
>
> I would like to dispute this. No argument is given as to why readers
> need something else than what is already embodied in the metadata.

Antoine,

In my mind, the core usecase is actually knowing how to configure the
writer (aka how can a writer have confidence to use a certain parquet
feature and make sure the readers they care about can read the file)

Andrew

On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 12:42 PM Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> """
> Readers need a simple mechanism to know whether they support all
> features they may encounter when reading a specific file.
> """
>
> I would like to dispute this. No argument is given as to why readers
> need something else than what is already embodied in the metadata.
>
> It's also not obvious why that information is granular enough (some
> features are optional, the user may not want to read all columns anyway,
> etc.).
>
> At least in Arrow, I don't remember a single user complaining that they
> don't have a simpler access to that information.
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
>
> Le 14/08/2026 à 20:25, Julien Le Dem a écrit :
> > Following up on the discussion during the Parquet sync on Wednesday, I
> have
> > added a new tab to the Versioning document
> > <
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19bOTy1WcLs9NP88DrysG4wG50pM6gmIFaSEWzkxUeJw/edit?tab=t.nywy9gjvpwqf
> >
> > to discuss 4 remaining decision points for the implementation. For each I
> > have listed options and pros and cons.
> > 1. Mechanism to decide what Parquet features writers should use
> > 2. Mechanism to write Parquet files that use a preview feature
> > 3. Mechanism to record in the file what features it uses
> > 4. Describing reader behavior when reading a file that is not fully
> > supported
> >
> > The stated guiding principle is: We want to minimize prescribing how
> > readers and writers should work and focus on giving them the information
> to
> > implement the behavior they deem appropriate.
> >
> > Please comment in the doc to help finalize consensus.
> > (thank you Andrew for early feedback and helping me think this through!)
>
>
>

Reply via email to