| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| 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 04:23:29 |
| Message-ID: | 782541.1734755009@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-12-21 04:28:57 | Re: Fix logging for invalid recovery timeline |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2024-12-21 04:12:19 | Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax |