Hi,
I know that this will probably get a staunch "No" as an answer, but...
I'm still going to ask: Would it be possible to backport 28b5726 to
the PG16 branch? Even though it's clearly a new feature?
I'm working on named prepared statement support in PgBouncer:
https://github.com/pgbouncer/pgboun
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:14:21AM +0200, Jelte Fennema wrote:
> 28b5726 allows sending Close messages from libpq, as opposed to
> sending DEALLOCATE queries to deallocate prepared statements. Without
> support for Close messages, libpq based clients won't be able to
> deallocate prepared statement
On 2023-Aug-16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Personally I think backpatching 28b5726 has a really low risk of
> > breaking anything.
>
> I agree about the low-risk argument, though. This is just new code.
Here's a way to think about it. If 16.1 was already out, would we add
libpq support for Clo
On 8/15/23 15:39, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2023-Aug-16, Michael Paquier wrote:
Personally I think backpatching 28b5726 has a really low risk of
breaking anything.
I agree about the low-risk argument, though. This is just new code.
Here's a way to think about it. If 16.1 was already out, w
