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 <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".
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
da...@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
