On 3/11/16 1:46 PM, David Steele wrote:
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>>
     > FWIW, I think it would be a good thing if the NOTIFY statement syntax 
     > 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!


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to