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 >>
