You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@arrow.apache.org by Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com> on 2021/06/24 19:16:48 UTC
[VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal the
concept of "LocalDateTime"
The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would like
to submit for a vote.
---
Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property. This
has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a timestamp
without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted it
to be a LocalDateTime.
This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and assert
that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
LocalDateTime.
Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a discussion
on the semantics) please refer to [3]
---
For sample arguments for/against see [2]. For a summary of some of
the discussion in [1] and a detailed discussion about the different
temporal concepts see [3]. A related straw poll (and eventual vote)
will be sent regarding treatment of instants as potential Arrow types.
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Update comments in schema.fbs to assert the above
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 Do not make any change
[1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8216e5de3efd2935e3907ad9bd20ce07e430952f84de69b36337e5eb%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
[2]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDAuxEDVo3YxZx20fGUGqQxi3aoss7TJ-TzOUjaoZk8/edit?usp=sharing
[3]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QDwX4ypfNvESc2ywcT1ygaf2Y1R8SmkpifMV7gpJdBI/edit?usp=sharing
Re: [VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal
the concept of "LocalDateTime"
Posted by Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 3:53 PM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, at 08:30, Jonathan Keane wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > -Jon
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 5:30 AM Rok Mihevc <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 (non-binding)
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 11:21 AM Eduardo Ponce <ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 (non-binding)
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 4:31 AM Joris Peeters <jo...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:29 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
> > > > > jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 21:21, Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 (binding)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:17 PM Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > to submit for a vote.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property.
> > > > This
> > > > > > > > has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a
> > > > timestamp
> > > > > > > > without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > to be a LocalDateTime.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and
> > > > > assert
> > > > > > > > that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
> > > > > > > > LocalDateTime.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a
> > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > on the semantics) please refer to [3]
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For sample arguments for/against see [2]. For a summary of some of
> > > > > > > > the discussion in [1] and a detailed discussion about the different
> > > > > > > > temporal concepts see [3]. A related straw poll (and eventual
> > > > vote)
> > > > > > > > will be sent regarding treatment of instants as potential Arrow
> > > > > types.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Update comments in schema.fbs to assert the above
> > > > > > > > [ ] +0
> > > > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not make any change
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8216e5de3efd2935e3907ad9bd20ce07e430952f84de69b36337e5eb%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDAuxEDVo3YxZx20fGUGqQxi3aoss7TJ-TzOUjaoZk8/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QDwX4ypfNvESc2ywcT1ygaf2Y1R8SmkpifMV7gpJdBI/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
Re: [VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal the concept of "LocalDateTime"
Posted by David Li <li...@apache.org>.
+1 (binding)
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, at 08:30, Jonathan Keane wrote:
> +1
>
> -Jon
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 5:30 AM Rok Mihevc <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 11:21 AM Eduardo Ponce <ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (non-binding)
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 4:31 AM Joris Peeters <jo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:29 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
> > > > jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 21:21, Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 (binding)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:17 PM Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would
> > > > like
> > > > > > > to submit for a vote.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property.
> > > This
> > > > > > > has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a
> > > timestamp
> > > > > > > without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted
> > > it
> > > > > > > to be a LocalDateTime.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and
> > > > assert
> > > > > > > that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
> > > > > > > LocalDateTime.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a
> > > discussion
> > > > > > > on the semantics) please refer to [3]
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For sample arguments for/against see [2]. For a summary of some of
> > > > > > > the discussion in [1] and a detailed discussion about the different
> > > > > > > temporal concepts see [3]. A related straw poll (and eventual
> > > vote)
> > > > > > > will be sent regarding treatment of instants as potential Arrow
> > > > types.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [ ] +1 Update comments in schema.fbs to assert the above
> > > > > > > [ ] +0
> > > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not make any change
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8216e5de3efd2935e3907ad9bd20ce07e430952f84de69b36337e5eb%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDAuxEDVo3YxZx20fGUGqQxi3aoss7TJ-TzOUjaoZk8/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QDwX4ypfNvESc2ywcT1ygaf2Y1R8SmkpifMV7gpJdBI/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: [VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal
the concept of "LocalDateTime"
Posted by Jonathan Keane <jk...@gmail.com>.
+1
-Jon
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 5:30 AM Rok Mihevc <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 11:21 AM Eduardo Ponce <ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 4:31 AM Joris Peeters <jo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:29 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
> > > jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 21:21, Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 (binding)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:17 PM Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would
> > > like
> > > > > > to submit for a vote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property.
> > This
> > > > > > has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a
> > timestamp
> > > > > > without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted
> > it
> > > > > > to be a LocalDateTime.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and
> > > assert
> > > > > > that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
> > > > > > LocalDateTime.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a
> > discussion
> > > > > > on the semantics) please refer to [3]
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For sample arguments for/against see [2]. For a summary of some of
> > > > > > the discussion in [1] and a detailed discussion about the different
> > > > > > temporal concepts see [3]. A related straw poll (and eventual
> > vote)
> > > > > > will be sent regarding treatment of instants as potential Arrow
> > > types.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ ] +1 Update comments in schema.fbs to assert the above
> > > > > > [ ] +0
> > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not make any change
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8216e5de3efd2935e3907ad9bd20ce07e430952f84de69b36337e5eb%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDAuxEDVo3YxZx20fGUGqQxi3aoss7TJ-TzOUjaoZk8/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QDwX4ypfNvESc2ywcT1ygaf2Y1R8SmkpifMV7gpJdBI/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
Re: [VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal
the concept of "LocalDateTime"
Posted by Rok Mihevc <ro...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 11:21 AM Eduardo Ponce <ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 4:31 AM Joris Peeters <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:29 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
> > jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 21:21, Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 (binding)
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:17 PM Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would
> > like
> > > > > to submit for a vote.
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property.
> This
> > > > > has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a
> timestamp
> > > > > without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted
> it
> > > > > to be a LocalDateTime.
> > > > >
> > > > > This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and
> > assert
> > > > > that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
> > > > > LocalDateTime.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a
> discussion
> > > > > on the semantics) please refer to [3]
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > For sample arguments for/against see [2]. For a summary of some of
> > > > > the discussion in [1] and a detailed discussion about the different
> > > > > temporal concepts see [3]. A related straw poll (and eventual
> vote)
> > > > > will be sent regarding treatment of instants as potential Arrow
> > types.
> > > > >
> > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > > > >
> > > > > [ ] +1 Update comments in schema.fbs to assert the above
> > > > > [ ] +0
> > > > > [ ] -1 Do not make any change
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8216e5de3efd2935e3907ad9bd20ce07e430952f84de69b36337e5eb%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > [2]:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDAuxEDVo3YxZx20fGUGqQxi3aoss7TJ-TzOUjaoZk8/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > [3]:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QDwX4ypfNvESc2ywcT1ygaf2Y1R8SmkpifMV7gpJdBI/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal
the concept of "LocalDateTime"
Posted by Eduardo Ponce <ed...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 4:31 AM Joris Peeters <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:29 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
> jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 21:21, Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:17 PM Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would
> like
> > > > to submit for a vote.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property. This
> > > > has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a timestamp
> > > > without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted it
> > > > to be a LocalDateTime.
> > > >
> > > > This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and
> assert
> > > > that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
> > > > LocalDateTime.
> > > >
> > > > Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a discussion
> > > > on the semantics) please refer to [3]
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > For sample arguments for/against see [2]. For a summary of some of
> > > > the discussion in [1] and a detailed discussion about the different
> > > > temporal concepts see [3]. A related straw poll (and eventual vote)
> > > > will be sent regarding treatment of instants as potential Arrow
> types.
> > > >
> > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > > >
> > > > [ ] +1 Update comments in schema.fbs to assert the above
> > > > [ ] +0
> > > > [ ] -1 Do not make any change
> > > >
> > > > [1]:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8216e5de3efd2935e3907ad9bd20ce07e430952f84de69b36337e5eb%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > [2]:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDAuxEDVo3YxZx20fGUGqQxi3aoss7TJ-TzOUjaoZk8/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > [3]:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QDwX4ypfNvESc2ywcT1ygaf2Y1R8SmkpifMV7gpJdBI/edit?usp=sharing
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal
the concept of "LocalDateTime"
Posted by Joris Peeters <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:29 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 21:21, Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:17 PM Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would like
> > > to submit for a vote.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property. This
> > > has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a timestamp
> > > without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted it
> > > to be a LocalDateTime.
> > >
> > > This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and assert
> > > that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
> > > LocalDateTime.
> > >
> > > Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a discussion
> > > on the semantics) please refer to [3]
> > > ---
> > >
> > > For sample arguments for/against see [2]. For a summary of some of
> > > the discussion in [1] and a detailed discussion about the different
> > > temporal concepts see [3]. A related straw poll (and eventual vote)
> > > will be sent regarding treatment of instants as potential Arrow types.
> > >
> > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 Update comments in schema.fbs to assert the above
> > > [ ] +0
> > > [ ] -1 Do not make any change
> > >
> > > [1]:
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8216e5de3efd2935e3907ad9bd20ce07e430952f84de69b36337e5eb%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > [2]:
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDAuxEDVo3YxZx20fGUGqQxi3aoss7TJ-TzOUjaoZk8/edit?usp=sharing
> > > [3]:
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QDwX4ypfNvESc2ywcT1ygaf2Y1R8SmkpifMV7gpJdBI/edit?usp=sharing
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal
the concept of "LocalDateTime"
Posted by Joris Van den Bossche <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 21:21, Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:17 PM Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would like
> > to submit for a vote.
> >
> > ---
> > Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property. This
> > has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a timestamp
> > without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted it
> > to be a LocalDateTime.
> >
> > This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and assert
> > that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
> > LocalDateTime.
> >
> > Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a discussion
> > on the semantics) please refer to [3]
> > ---
> >
> > For sample arguments for/against see [2]. For a summary of some of
> > the discussion in [1] and a detailed discussion about the different
> > temporal concepts see [3]. A related straw poll (and eventual vote)
> > will be sent regarding treatment of instants as potential Arrow types.
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Update comments in schema.fbs to assert the above
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 Do not make any change
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8216e5de3efd2935e3907ad9bd20ce07e430952f84de69b36337e5eb%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > [2]:
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDAuxEDVo3YxZx20fGUGqQxi3aoss7TJ-TzOUjaoZk8/edit?usp=sharing
> > [3]:
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QDwX4ypfNvESc2ywcT1ygaf2Y1R8SmkpifMV7gpJdBI/edit?usp=sharing
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal
the concept of "LocalDateTime"
Posted by Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:17 PM Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would like
> to submit for a vote.
>
> ---
> Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property. This
> has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a timestamp
> without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted it
> to be a LocalDateTime.
>
> This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and assert
> that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
> LocalDateTime.
>
> Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a discussion
> on the semantics) please refer to [3]
> ---
>
> For sample arguments for/against see [2]. For a summary of some of
> the discussion in [1] and a detailed discussion about the different
> temporal concepts see [3]. A related straw poll (and eventual vote)
> will be sent regarding treatment of instants as potential Arrow types.
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 Update comments in schema.fbs to assert the above
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 Do not make any change
>
> [1]:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8216e5de3efd2935e3907ad9bd20ce07e430952f84de69b36337e5eb%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> [2]:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDAuxEDVo3YxZx20fGUGqQxi3aoss7TJ-TzOUjaoZk8/edit?usp=sharing
> [3]:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QDwX4ypfNvESc2ywcT1ygaf2Y1R8SmkpifMV7gpJdBI/edit?usp=sharing
>
Re: [VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal
the concept of "LocalDateTime"
Posted by Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com>.
This vote passes (+8 binding / +3 non-binding). I've created
ARROW-13218 and started a PR [1] to tackle both this vote and the
other vote (regarding instants). The PR will need to wait until the
other vote settles to be merged but I'd appreciate any comments /
refinements in the meantime.
[1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/10629
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 8:25 AM Jorge Cardoso Leitão
<jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 7:47 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > > On Jun 25, 2021, at 10:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 24/06/2021 à 21:16, Weston Pace a écrit :
> > >> The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would like
> > >> to submit for a vote.
> > >> ---
> > >> Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property. This
> > >> has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a timestamp
> > >> without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted it
> > >> to be a LocalDateTime.
> > >> This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and assert
> > >> that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
> > >> LocalDateTime.
> > >> Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a discussion
> > >> on the semantics) please refer to [3]
> > >> ---
> > >
> > > +1
> >
> >
Re: [VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal
the concept of "LocalDateTime"
Posted by Jorge Cardoso Leitão <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 7:47 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> > On Jun 25, 2021, at 10:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 24/06/2021 à 21:16, Weston Pace a écrit :
> >> The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would like
> >> to submit for a vote.
> >> ---
> >> Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property. This
> >> has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a timestamp
> >> without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted it
> >> to be a LocalDateTime.
> >> This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and assert
> >> that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
> >> LocalDateTime.
> >> Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a discussion
> >> on the semantics) please refer to [3]
> >> ---
> >
> > +1
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal
the concept of "LocalDateTime"
Posted by Julian Hyde <jh...@gmail.com>.
+1
> On Jun 25, 2021, at 10:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
>
> Le 24/06/2021 à 21:16, Weston Pace a écrit :
>> The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would like
>> to submit for a vote.
>> ---
>> Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property. This
>> has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a timestamp
>> without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted it
>> to be a LocalDateTime.
>> This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and assert
>> that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
>> LocalDateTime.
>> Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a discussion
>> on the semantics) please refer to [3]
>> ---
>
> +1
Re: [VOTE] Clarify meaning of timestamp without time zone to equal
the concept of "LocalDateTime"
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
Le 24/06/2021 à 21:16, Weston Pace a écrit :
> The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would like
> to submit for a vote.
>
> ---
> Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property. This
> has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a timestamp
> without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted it
> to be a LocalDateTime.
>
> This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and assert
> that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as
> LocalDateTime.
>
> Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a discussion
> on the semantics) please refer to [3]
> ---
+1