Re: future of PQfn()

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: future of PQfn()
Date: 2026-05-27 21:39:53
Message-ID: CAOYmi+n6eFXs_pncObs9Vhe7S1gbvepRncYJaaO98anxL8WODg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 12:55 PM Nathan Bossart
<nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I wonder how difficult it would be to teach the protocol to advise clients
> when prepared statements are deallocated...

Probably not too difficult. But it seems like most, if not all, of the
stuff in the DISCARD ALL umbrella is a target for a feature like
that... This feels a lot like the perennial request for proxies to be
able to separate their own context from the per-application/per-user
contexts running on top of them.

--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zsolt Parragi 2026-05-27 21:51:59 Re: Support EXCEPT for ALL SEQUENCES publications
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2026-05-27 21:37:32 Re: DBeaver Experiencing timeouts while connecting to New Linux PostgreSql server