Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Trey Boudreau <trey(at)treysoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax
Date: 2024-12-20 22:47:02
Message-ID: D65628A3-8670-4885-9EF0-9E67203C3E40@yesql.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 20 Dec 2024, at 23:07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> ..it makes "LISTEN *" act the same as though you had somehow explicitly listed
> every possible channel.

When thinking about it while reading this thread, this is what I came up with
as well. Since the current workings of LISTEN is so well established I can't
see how we could make this anything but a natural extension of the current.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-12-20 23:22:22 Re: Possible integer overflow in bringetbitmap()
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-12-20 22:45:43 Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax