Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 727992.1734728309@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax (Trey Boudreau <trey@treysoft.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax
Re: Discussion on a LISTEN-ALL syntax |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Trey Boudreau <trey@treysoft.com> writes: > so I'd like to propose a 'LISTEN *' equivalent to 'UNLISTEN *'. Seems reasonable in the abstract, and given the UNLISTEN * precedent it's hard to quibble with that syntax choice. I think what actually needs discussing are the semantics, specifically how this'd interact with other LISTEN/UNLISTEN actions. Explain what you think should be the behavior after: LISTEN foo; LISTEN *; UNLISTEN *; -- are we still listening on foo? LISTEN *; LISTEN foo; UNLISTEN *; -- how about now? LISTEN *; UNLISTEN foo; -- how about now? LISTEN *; LISTEN foo; UNLISTEN foo; -- does that make a difference? I don't have any strong preferences about this, but we ought to have a clear idea of the behavior we want before we start coding. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: