Hi,
> On 25 Sep 2026, at 16:33, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced by this blithe assertion "not our business to raise
> error". The adjacent case for ExecuteStmt *will* raise an error if
> it can't find the prepared statement; why shouldn't this case act like
> that one? IOW, the sequence of client operations that you show is
> invalid, and I think we ought to push back on that accordingly.
Alright, here is a patch that now explicit returns an error when the portal
is already closed, matching what ExecuteStmt does.
--
Cheers,
Dirkjan
