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 >
