+1 (binding) Thank you Pedro for your work on this.
Ian On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 6:06 PM David Li <[email protected]> wrote: > My vote is +1 (binding). > > Thanks Pedro for pushing this through! > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2026, at 17:22, David Li wrote: > > Sorry, forgot to reply here - I pinged a couple people, let's see. > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2026, at 09:38, Pedro Matias wrote: > >> Absolutely, I would much appreciate extra eyes. I'm not sure who to tag > >> though. Should I go directly to their repos and open issues? > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:34 AM David Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Pedro, it may be worth tagging contributors to InfluxData, XTDB, Apache > >>> Doris, GizmoDB, and others who use Flight SQL to get their thoughts on > this > >>> too? I took a look at the PRs but I think it'd be worth getting more > eyes > >>> before taking a vote. (Some of these people are active here but may > have > >>> missed this; others are only on GitHub IIRC.) > >>> > >>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2026, at 07:39, Pedro Matias wrote: > >>> > Hi all, > >>> > > >>> > Following the discussion in the mailing list at [0], to allow Flight > SQL > >>> > servers to communicate the proper network flow for executing a > prepared > >>> > statement (CommandPreparedStatementQuery or > >>> CommandPreparedStatementUpdate) > >>> > to clients, I have proposed a new boolean field, is_update, be added > to > >>> the > >>> > ActionCreatePreparedStatementResult message. > >>> > > >>> > This change is backward and forward compatible. Old clients ignore > the > >>> > field set by new servers (this derives directly from protobuf > behavior). > >>> > New clients can determine the path to use with their current behavior > >>> when > >>> > running prepared statements on old servers (this needs to be handled > in > >>> > each implementation). > >>> > > >>> > The spec change PR is available at [1] > >>> > > >>> > I have draft PRs for implementing the change in Java (including the > JDBC > >>> > Flight SQL driver) at [2] and in Go at [3]. I also have a PR for the > Go > >>> > ADBC Flight SQL driver at [4]. Since the Python ADBC driver wraps > the Go > >>> > driver, it is also affected even though the code remained unchanged. > >>> > > >>> > If this is approved, I personally commit to implementing the change > in > >>> C++ > >>> > and the new FlightSQL ODBC driver (once it is released). > >>> > > >>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > >>> > [ ] +1 Accept addition of is_update field to > >>> > ActionCreatePreparedStatementResult > >>> > [ ] +0 > >>> > [ ] -1 Do not accept because... > >>> > > >>> > PS - I am not a PMC member, but during the community meeting today > Bryce > >>> > told me I could initiate the vote myself. I read previous spec > changes > >>> > threads to get a grasp on how the process usually goes, but I > apologize > >>> in > >>> > advance if I broke any protocol with this action. Let me know if > that is > >>> > the case so I can correct my behavior. > >>> > > >>> > [0] - > https://lists.apache.org/thread/88msflnwkkw8t81czs2ndqhkn1fb1pxd > >>> > [1] - https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49498 > >>> > [2] - https://github.com/apache/arrow-java/pull/1064 > >>> > [3] - https://github.com/apache/arrow-go/pull/732 > >>> > [4] - https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/pull/4161 > >>> > > >>> > Pedro > >>> >
