| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Trey Boudreau <trey(at)treysoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax |
| Date: | 2024-12-21 05:22:39 |
| Message-ID: | 4ad7140c-04e2-4b5f-aef7-3497c7ccecb4@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21/12/2024 05:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> writes:
>> Could I perhaps propose a sort of wildmat[1] syntax?
>> The above sequence could be expressed simply as:
>> LISTEN *,!foo.*,foo.bar.*
> That doesn't absolve you from having to say what happens if the
> user then issues another "LISTEN zed" or "UNLISTEN foo.bar.baz"
> command. We can't break the existing behavior that "LISTEN foo"
> followed by "LISTEN bar" results in listening to both channels.
> So on the whole this seems like it just adds complexity without
> removing any. I'm inclined to limit things to one pattern per
> LISTEN/UNLISTEN command, with more complex behaviors reached
> by issuing a sequence of commands.
Fair enough.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2024-12-21 05:55:42 | Re: Fix crash when non-creator being an iteration on shared radix tree |
| Previous Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-12-21 04:28:57 | Re: Fix logging for invalid recovery timeline |