feat(arrow/flight/sql): Add is_update field to ActionCreatePreparedStatementResult

[ennuite]

Rationale for this change

Following the discussion in the mailing list
, this PR introduces a new field in ActionCreatePreparedStatementResult, optional boolean is_update, that allows servers to indicate to clients the correct execution path for prepared statements.

What changes are included in this PR?

The new field is_update is added to PreparedStatement, as well as serialization/deserialization and getters.

Are these changes tested?

Yes. Unit tests for the new field were added to client_test.go, that complement the already existing unit tests for prepared statements queries (there were no tests for prepared statement updates). Integration tests for the new field were added to server_test.go. These are also the first integration tests for prepared statements.

Are there any user-facing changes?

Yes. There are no breaking changes because the new field is optional, but a user-facing extension to prepared statements was added to allow for reading/writing to the new field.

Closes #705

[ennuite]

NB: I'm still investigating what led to such a large diff in the protobuf generated file. The changes correspond only to compiling the PR at apache/arrow#49498 with the following command:

cd /path/to/arrow-go/fork/arrow-go/arrow/flight

protoc --experimental_allow_proto3_optional \
  -I/path/to/arrow/fork/arrow/format \
  --go_out=./gen/flight \
  --go-grpc_out=./gen/flight \
  --go_opt=paths=source_relative \
  --go-grpc_opt=paths=source_relative \
  /path/to/arrow/fork/arrow/format/FlightSql.proto

@zeroshade am I supposed to merge changes to that file? I left them here for now to make the PR self contained for easier review, but I assume that if the PR in the main repo is merged, the generated code in this repo will be automatically updated. I will remove the changes if/when that time comes.

[zeroshade]

NB: I'm still investigating what led to such a large diff in the protobuf generated file. The changes correspond only to compiling the PR at apache/arrow#49498 with the following command:

The diff is likely due to the fact that we haven't regenerated the protobuf code for quite a while, and protoc is now several versions ahead of when we last regenerated the code.

We also have a go generate that'll regenerate for you btw.

I don't consider the diff in the protobuf to necessarily be bad though