Hi Filip,

On 2/20/16 8:00 AM, Filip RembiaƂkowski 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".


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to