Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19849.1455049079@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional (Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski > <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com> wrote: >> But then it becomes disputable if SQL syntax change makes sense. >> >> ---we had this, >> NOTIFY channel [ , payload ] >> ---and in this patch we have this >> NOTIFY [ ALL | DISTINCT ] channel [ , payload ] >> --- but maybe we should have this? >> NOTIFY channel [ , payload [ , mode ] ] > What about adopting the options-inside-parentheses format, the way > EXPLAIN does nowadays, something like: > NOTIFY (DEDUPLICATE FALSE, MODE IMMEDIATE) mychannel; 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. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: