Hi Filip, On 2/20/16 8:00 AM, Filip Rembiałkowski wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Catalin Iacob <iacobcata...@gmail.com > On 2/9/16, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us <mailto:t...@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 da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
