MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ahXE28klgxIJXBLq@nathan>
 <CAOYmi+m3bKWfHhAj3iKBa3mKj=_4MO3xY2WpBsB4Hx7yyAE7rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ahX6nb1aqh51IhHC@nathan>
 <CAOYmi+n6eFXs_pncObs9Vhe7S1gbvepRncYJaaO98anxL8WODg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ahmtVYcf4EYwz02U@nathan>
 <CAOYmi+mA4Cdb+RWV2M83FbsSN85t2iuoXejA-PKNrQ_ayHOQWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ahm6kuL3L3wSYo6d@nathan>
 <CAOYmi+nhtqGZAgtLvR2OdNZ8mfdY79qseEtKXnbs1jvtLNOrZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ahnB8zuR0AYegcJI@nathan>
In-Reply-To: <ahnB8zuR0AYegcJI@nathan>
From: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 10:04:16 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAOYmi+=sO6dR6P2c48f6ZT9aOgzVdf+pjn3TMsehTPr8-Yxjsw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: future of PQfn()
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOYmi%2B%3DsO6dR6P2c48f6ZT9aOgzVdf%2Bpjn3TMsehTPr8-Yxjsw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 9:42=E2=80=AFAM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmai=
l.com> wrote:
> Along these lines, I did consider "pinning" statements or even having
> "built-in" ones for libpq.  I didn't like the "pinning" idea because that
> seemed problematic for connection poolers.

Right -- whether a general context, or multiplexed streams, or
explicit pins, proxies would have to be intimately aware of them. They
can then layer their own on top, or make sure different client
requests don't conflict, or release them on client disconnection...

> And the "built-in" idea seemed
> too libpq-centric for what I'd argue is a general problem.  The other ide=
as
> involved guessing at what's happening based on the queries or somehow
> trying to handle failures due to missing/wrong prepared statements, none =
of
> which felt viable.

Agreed. (Although, for that last point, I wondered whether we could
make this idempotent somehow. I think the answer is "not worth it".)

--Jacob