On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 10:42:47AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> Short-term, keeping it around seems fine.
>
> Long-term, it doesn't feel great that the alternatives we tell other
> people to use are... worse. Surely other clients of libpq run into the
> layering violation problem with prepared statements, as well?
Yup. Here's a related note in JDBC:
https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/cf2d89ec/docs/content/documentation/server-prepare.md?plain=1#L305-L315
I wonder how difficult it would be to teach the protocol to advise clients
when prepared statements are deallocated...
FWIW I'm less concerned about the name collision problem. I was thinking
we could just document that libpq manages statements with a prefix like
"libpq_internal_". Any problems in that area seem likely to be intentional
breakage that we needn't worry about.
--
nathan
