From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
Cc: | Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add additional extended protocol commands to psql: \parse and \bindx |
Date: | 2025-06-19 07:09:21 |
Message-ID: | aFO3oaP_ew1qycbv@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 09:15:07AM +0200, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 at 08:23, Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com> wrote:
>> Since \bind_named is also new, we can also rename it to make it
>> consistent with close meta-command. So what about renaming \bind_named
>> to \bindprepared and \close to \closeprepared?
>
> I think I still prefer \bind_named or maybe \bindnamed (depending on
> what our policy for underscores in \ commands is).
Not sure that there is such a policy in place. I find names with
underscores easier to parse.
> For that command it
> should differentiate from the already existing \bind command, which is
> also for prepared statements, just not for "named" prepared
> statements. While close needs to differentiate from close for portals
> vs close for prepared statements.
Good point. I would be on board with a \close_prepared then, if
that's the consensus we reach, without touching at \bind_named. We
still have time to decide on the name until the release, just let's
make sure to not do a rename multiple times.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shubhankar Anand Kulkarni | 2025-06-19 07:45:08 | Re: Expression push down from Join Node to below node. |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-06-19 07:06:47 | Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? |