Re: queryId constant squashing does not support prepared statements

On 2025-May-22, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:

> Just to call this out, I don't think there is an agreement on squashing
> Params, which you have added into 0002.

Actually I think we do have agreement on squashing PARAM_EXTERN Params.
https://postgr.es/m/3086744.1746500983@sss.pgh.pa.us

> Now, both flavour of the proposed solution could be still concidered too
> invasive to be applied as a bug fix. I personally don't see it like
> this, but I'm obviously biased. This leads us to following decisions to
> be made:
>
> * Is modifying parser (either adding a new node or modifying an existing
> one) acceptable at this stage? I guess it would be enough to collect
> couple of votes yes/no in this thread.

IMO adding a struct as suggested is okay, especially if it reduces the
overall code complexity. But we don't want a node, just a bare struct.
Adding a node would be more troublesome.

--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Pido que me den el Nobel por razones humanitarias" (Nicanor Parra)