| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Filip Rembiałkowski <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com>, Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional |
| Date: | 2016-03-11 18:46:19 |
| Message-ID: | 56E3127B.6010309@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Filip,
On 2/20/16 8:00 AM, Filip Rembiałkowski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com
> On 2/9/16, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>>
> wrote:
> > FWIW, I think it would be a good thing if the NOTIFY statement syntax were
> > not remarkably different from the syntax used in the pg_notify() function
> > call. To do otherwise would certainly be confusing. So on the whole
> > I'd go with the "NOTIFY channel [ , payload [ , mode ] ]" option.
>
> Filip, do you agree with Tom's proposal? Do you plan to rework the
> patch on these lines? If you are I'll try to review it, if not I could
> give it a shot as I'm interested in having this in 9.6.
>
> I see that Tom's remarks give more flexibility, and your refinement
> makes sense.
It looks like we are waiting on a new patch from you before this can be
reviewed. Are you close to having that done?
Meanwhile, I have marked it "Waiting on Author".
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2016-03-11 19:00:47 | Re: eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2) |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2016-03-11 18:37:37 | Re: eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2) |