| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, 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 02:56:37 |
| Message-ID: | aEuTZb5WS9RIoZnb@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-06-13 03:05:53 | Re: Suggestions for improving \conninfo output in v18 |
| Previous Message | Junwang Zhao | 2025-06-13 01:54:59 | Re: Use RELATION_IS_OTHER_TEMP where possible |