> On Dec 20, 2024, at 4:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hmph. After thinking about it a bit I have a different idea
> (and I see David has yet a third one). So maybe this is more
> contentious than it seems. But at any rate, I have two
> fundamental thoughts:
>
> * "Listen to all but X" seems lik
> On Dec 20, 2024, at 4:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
>> On Friday, December 20, 2024, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> * "Listen to all but X" seems like a reasonable desire.
>
>> This I concur with, and would add: let me name my channels
>> accounting.payables, accounting.recei
On 21/12/2024 05:23, Tom Lane wrote:
Vik Fearing writes:
Could I perhaps propose a sort of wildmat[1] syntax?
The above sequence could be expressed simply as:
LISTEN *,!foo.*,foo.bar.*
That doesn't absolve you from having to say what happens if the
user then issues another "LISTEN zed"
Vik Fearing writes:
> Could I perhaps propose a sort of wildmat[1] syntax?
> The above sequence could be expressed simply as:
> LISTEN *,!foo.*,foo.bar.*
That doesn't absolve you from having to say what happens if the
user then issues another "LISTEN zed" or "UNLISTEN foo.bar.baz"
command.
On 20/12/2024 23:45, Tom Lane wrote:
Don't think that quite flies. We might have to regurgitate the
state explicitly:
LISTEN *
UNLISTEN foo.*
LISTEN foo.bar.*
showing that we're listening to channels foo.bar.*, but not other
channels beginning "foo", and also to all c
> On 20 Dec 2024, at 23:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> ..it makes "LISTEN *" act the same as though you had somehow explicitly listed
> every possible channel.
When thinking about it while reading this thread, this is what I came up with
as well. Since the current workings of LISTEN is so well establish
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Friday, December 20, 2024, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * "Listen to all but X" seems like a reasonable desire.
> This I concur with, and would add: let me name my channels
> accounting.payables, accounting.receivables, sales.leads; and let me listen
> or ignore all accoun
On Friday, December 20, 2024, Tom Lane wrote:
> Trey Boudreau writes:
>
> * "Listen to all but X" seems like a reasonable desire.
>
This I concur with, and would add: let me name my channels
accounting.payables, accounting.receivables, sales.leads; and let me listen
or ignore all accounting/sal
Trey Boudreau writes:
> My first pass at the documentation looks like this:
>
> The special wildcard * cancels all listener
> registrations for the current session and replaces them with a
> virtual registration that matches all channels. Further
> LISTEN and UNLISTEN class="parameter">cha
On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 2:42 PM Trey Boudreau wrote:
> We could have a different set of keywords, like LISTEN_ALL/UNLISTEN_ALL
> that doesn’t interfere with the existing behavior.
>
>
I think we will need something along these lines. We've given * a meaning
in UNLISTEN * that doesn't match what
On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 2:42 PM Trey Boudreau wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 2024, at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Seems reasonable in the abstract, and given the UNLISTEN * precedent
> > it's hard to quibble with that syntax choice. I think what actually
> > needs discussing are the semantics, specif
On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 1:58 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Trey Boudreau writes:
> > so I'd like to propose a 'LISTEN *' equivalent to 'UNLISTEN *'.
>
> Seems reasonable in the abstract, and given the UNLISTEN * precedent
> it's hard to quibble with that syntax choice. I think what actually
> needs disc
> On Dec 20, 2024, at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Seems reasonable in the abstract, and given the UNLISTEN * precedent
> it's hard to quibble with that syntax choice. I think what actually
> needs discussing are the semantics, specifically how this'd interact
> with other LISTEN/UNLISTEN actions
Trey Boudreau writes:
> so I'd like to propose a 'LISTEN *' equivalent to 'UNLISTEN *'.
Seems reasonable in the abstract, and given the UNLISTEN * precedent
it's hard to quibble with that syntax choice. I think what actually
needs discussing are the semantics, specifically how this'd interact
wi
Howdy all,
NOTE: Grey-beard coder, pgsql newbie. All info/tips/suggestions welcome!
I have a use-case where I’d like to LISTEN for all NOTIFY channels. Right now I
simply
issue a LISTEN for every channel name of interest, but in production the
channels will
number in the low thousands. The cur
15 matches
Mail list logo
