| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add additional extended protocol commands to psql: \parse and \bindx |
| Date: | 2025-06-13 13:57:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20476f68-26e4-4a3b-b2e6-1c7554359fe8@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13.06.25 04:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 09:53:13PM -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 9:14 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
>> wrote:
>>> And this is not something users ever see, so the connection would not be
>>> obvious. Maybe this should be called something more specific like
>>> \close_stmt.
>>
>> Maybe just \closeprepared ?
>
> I'm OK with a rename if people feel strongly about it and we still
> have the time to do tweaks like that, but I don't like the suggestions
> \close_stmt and \closeprepared, because that's inconsistent with the
> other new meta-commands.
>
> What about \close_named to be consistent with \bind_named? We always
> require a statement name when closing a prepared statement.
That doesn't address the concern that it's confusing what kind of object
\close operates on. There are named and unnamed cursors (= portals),
after all.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2025-06-13 14:12:03 | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-06-13 13:50:46 | Re: Suggestions for improving \conninfo output in v18 |