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 <pe...@eisentraut.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.
