Hello Qi, I'm supportive of the NanoSecond Timestamps proposal; however, before we initiate the vote, there are a few outstanding comments in the SPIP document that haven't been addressed yet. Since the vote is on the document itself, could we resolve these items beforehand?
For example: The default precision of TimestampNsNTZType is set to 6, which overlaps with the existing TimestampNTZ. The specified range exceeds the capacity of an int64, but the document doesn't clarify how this type will be represented in memory or serialized in data sources. Schema inference details for data sources are missing. These points still need discussion. I appreciate your efforts in putting the doc together and look forward to your contribution! Thanks, DB Tsai | https://www.dbtsai.com/ | PGP 42E5B25A8F7A82C1 > On Mar 27, 2025, at 1:24 PM, huaxin gao <huaxin.ga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 1:22 PM Qi Tan <qi.tan.j...@gmail.com > <mailto:qi.tan.j...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I would like to start a vote on adding support for nanoseconds timestamps. >> >> Discussion thread: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/y2vzrjl1499j5dvbpg3m81jxdhf4b6of >> SPIP: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wjFsBdlV2YK75x7UOk2HhDOqWVA0yC7iEiqOMnNnxlA/edit?usp=sharing >> JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-50532 >> >> Please vote on the SPIP for the next 72 hours: >> >> [ ] +1: Accept the proposal as an official SPIP >> [ ] +0 >> [ ] -1: I don’t think this is a good idea because
