From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: future of PQfn()
Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 14:55:09 -0500
Message-ID: <ahX6nb1aqh51IhHC@nathan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOYmi+m3bKWfHhAj3iKBa3mKj=_4MO3xY2WpBsB4Hx7yyAE7rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ahXE28klgxIJXBLq@nathan>
<CAOYmi+m3bKWfHhAj3iKBa3mKj=_4MO3xY2WpBsB4Hx7yyAE7rw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 10:42:47AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> Short-term, keeping it around seems fine.
>
> Long-term, it doesn't feel great that the alternatives we tell other
> people to use are... worse. Surely other clients of libpq run into the
> layering violation problem with prepared statements, as well?
Yup. Here's a related note in JDBC:
https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/cf2d89ec/docs/content/documentation/server-prepare.md?plain=1#...
I wonder how difficult it would be to teach the protocol to advise clients
when prepared statements are deallocated...
FWIW I'm less concerned about the name collision problem. I was thinking
we could just document that libpq manages statements with a prefix like
"libpq_internal_". Any problems in that area seem likely to be intentional
breakage that we needn't worry about.
--
nathan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: nathandbossart@gmail.com, jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: future of PQfn()
In-Reply-To: <ahX6nb1aqh51IhHC@nathan>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox