Subject: Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Filip_Rembia=c5=82kowski?= <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com>,
 Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAP_rwwn2z0gPOn8GuQ3qDVS5+HgEcG2EzEOyiJtcA=vpDEhoCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <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>
 <56E3127B.6010309@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Message-ID: <56E9EFD8.4040907@pgmasters.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:44:24 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56E3127B.6010309@pgmasters.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 3/11/16 1:46 PM, David Steele wrote:
> 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".

Since there has been no activity on this thread since before the CF and 
no response from the author I have marked this "returned with feedback". 
Please feel free to resubmit for 9.7!

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net


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