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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Filip Rembiałkowski <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com>
To: Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin@gmail.com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:46:19 -0500
Message-ID: <56E3127B.6010309@pgmasters.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAP_rww=ezkD4a-D_tTV2of92ZuC=DnPEFwC4vu8z4uViMnbw9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP_rwwn2z0gPOn8GuQ3qDVS5+HgEcG2EzEOyiJtcA=vpDEhoCg@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>
	<19849.1455049079@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAHg_5grdTibp2qbKzitmnBvqCXAo5yvChhmicfJc_sRmsW2W6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP_rww=ezkD4a-D_tTV2of92ZuC=DnPEFwC4vu8z4uViMnbw9g@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-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@gmail.com
>     On 2/9/16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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@pgmasters.net

Attachments:

  [application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (841B, ../56E3127B.6010309@pgmasters.net/2-signature.asc)
  download

view thread (31+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <56E3127B.6010309@pgmasters.net>
Permalink:  ../56E3127B.6010309@pgmasters.net/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/56E3127B.6010309@pgmasters.net

 · 

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: david@pgmasters.net, filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com, iacobcatalin@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional
  In-Reply-To: <56E3127B.6010309@pgmasters.net>

* 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