pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>
Cc: Filip Rembiałkowski <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 15:17:59 -0500
Message-ID: <19849.1455049079@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK3UJRE3wdNj0_qB-dgb+JAj3iXFNtjSf649o3hh45QtayxS8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP_rwwn2z0gPOn8GuQ3qDVS5+HgEcG2EzEOyiJtcA=vpDEhoCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoYiKedu0vUXFQHKpJ1COmT7sNJd2KOLLtXQTQc6Ztgkug@mail.gmail.com>
	<7647.1454723392@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CADxJZo16qGNKhROpM-7hg6xgxNMarh2kBW=2suOCv+5EbPUfsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP_rww=xRoBfbAqkywCHTs3jDxF9zknh1zLkrJKxZGykRtEHQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<56B7224C.4090807@2ndquadrant.fr>
	<CAP_rwwng-PBcVuNrerH=s7yHdZWFJ1-CYvqBYJv=0493PK+cgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<56B764BA.9070800@2ndquadrant.fr>
	<CAP_rwwkva10=z82ak1eQjBOCHLq6bXMf=5MsAfi6Oowu73kpGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMsr+YEaHEaqWzdbhWTGLK6415Vz=kWVdqauMcqhjwOdiJ1X-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP_rwwkG5pkGLAXz4h9ax7Qy2oyJNyjJfw6iQyTJvdPTC0TSAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHyXU0zf-nFfpkHHw7Lme-OPJJ5j4sNs2kSCK9=YUURUB8zU5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP_rww=aTu4MLPxXapUqBotSme1msr6m9st3iPSTd+fQoY4vNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK3UJRE3wdNj0_qB-dgb+JAj3iXFNtjSf649o3hh45QtayxS8Q@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski
> <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But then it becomes disputable if SQL syntax change makes sense.
>> 
>> ---we had this,
>> NOTIFY channel [ , payload ]
>> ---and in this patch we have this
>> NOTIFY [ ALL | DISTINCT ] channel [ , payload ]
>> ---  but maybe we should have this?
>> NOTIFY channel [ , payload [ , mode ] ]

> What about adopting the options-inside-parentheses format, the way
> EXPLAIN does nowadays, something like:
> NOTIFY (DEDUPLICATE FALSE, MODE IMMEDIATE) mychannel;

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.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (31+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <19849.1455049079@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../19849.1455049079@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/19849.1455049079@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, schmiddy@gmail.com, filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com, mmoncure@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional
  In-Reply-To: <19849.1455049079@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox