Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwYxSOELA-MT_TNbDgPbs5Q+wE+EM0_tBDWOmHDY+Gkpvg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax
List pgsql-hackers
On Friday, December 20, 2024, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Trey Boudreau <trey@treysoft.com> 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/sales channel names.

But staying within the existing “deny default, permissive grants only” design to meet this specific goal seems like a reasonable incremental step to accept.  Let others wanting to work on a more expansive capability change brings those patches forth.

As for exposing this to the user, this allow-all “channel” would be presented as any other normal channel.  The reader would need to know about the special meaning of whatever label we end up using. IOW, the wildcard is the label and no attempt to tie real in-use channel names to it should or even could be attempted.

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax