From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>
cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Filip_Rembia=C5=82kowski?= <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com>,
 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>,
 Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>
 message dated "Tue, 09 Feb 2016 15:09:56 -0500"
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 15:17:59 -0500
Message-ID: <19849.1455049079@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

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