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 <iacobcatalin@gmail.com
>> On 2/9/16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us <mailto:tgl@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
david@pgmasters.net
