From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Yura Sokolov <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Add PortalDrop in exec_execute_message
In-reply-to: <4aa370cb91ecf2f9885d98b80ad1109c@postgrespro.ru>
References: <4aa370cb91ecf2f9885d98b80ad1109c@postgrespro.ru>
Comments: In-reply-to Yura Sokolov <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>
	message dated "Wed, 19 May 2021 19:18:27 +0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4160142.1621621400.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 14:23:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4160143.1621621400@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4160143.1621621400%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Yura Sokolov <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> I propose to add PortalDrop at the 'if (completed)' branch of
> exec_execute_message.

This violates our wire protocol specification, which
specifically says

    If successfully created, a named portal object lasts till the end of
    the current transaction, unless explicitly destroyed. An unnamed
    portal is destroyed at the end of the transaction, or as soon as the
    next Bind statement specifying the unnamed portal as destination is
    issued. (Note that a simple Query message also destroys the unnamed
    portal.)

I'm inclined to think that your complaint would be better handled
by having the client send a portal-close command, if it's not
going to do something else immediately.

			regards, tom lane