arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Micah Kornfield <>
Subject Re: How about inet4/inet6/macaddr data types?
Date Wed, 01 May 2019 22:59:45 GMT
> I'm awaiting community feedback about the approach to implementing
> extension types, whether the approach that I've used (using the
> following keys in custom_metadata [1]) is the one that we want to use
> longer-term. This certainly seems like a good time to have that
> discussion. If there is consensus then we can document it formally in
> the specification documents, and we probably will want to hold a vote
> to ensure that we are in agreement.

Please let me know if this is best on a separate thread. I think I would
feel more comfortable finalizing this if we had a few more examples
exercising the functionality.  Inet, seems like a complicated enough
use-case for modeling which would make it a good use-case (It seems like it
might involve a struct/union?).  I also presume we will need a Java
implementation, before we finalize anything?

A small amount of bikeshedding on key names: We should probably take a
namespace reservation approach for custom metadata in Schema.fbs [1].  In
this regard I have a small preference for something reserving all metadata
with something like "ARROW:<reserved_arrow_key>" or "ARROW." (not an
underscore, and I'm open to different capitalization.)  This seems to be a
similar approach to how avro reserves metadata keys [2].


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message