My vote is +1 (binding). Thanks Pedro for pushing this through!
On Sat, Apr 25, 2026, at 17:22, David Li wrote: > 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 >>>
