Thread

Re: future of PQfn()

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2026-05-29T16:42:27Z

For future reference in the archives, I'm moving the discussion about 0001
(the prepared statement deallocation notification mechanism) to a new
thread:

	https://postgr.es/m/ahm_4eOKkkKJ3Gds%40nathan

On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 09:33:03AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 9:11 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm certainly open to other ideas, but I'm afraid this is the best I've
>> come up with in my admittedly limited time thinking about the problem.
> 
> No worries -- I hadn't meant to block progress here on protocol
> design. I think keeping PQnfn() for the immediate future is a good
> plan. I just wanted to plant a seed for getting away from this problem
> eventually.
> 
> (As for pie-in-the-sky alternative ideas, the ability for middleware
> to separate contexts or streams of packets has come up before. libpq
> could theoretically mark its own "context" of server-side allocations
> that are not touched by an application-context DISCARD.)

Along these lines, I did consider "pinning" statements or even having
"built-in" ones for libpq.  I didn't like the "pinning" idea because that
seemed problematic for connection poolers.  And the "built-in" idea seemed
too libpq-centric for what I'd argue is a general problem.  The other ideas
involved guessing at what's happening based on the queries or somehow
trying to handle failures due to missing/wrong prepared statements, none of
which felt viable.

-- 
nathan