Thanks for all the input.
Finally I found time and motivation to revive this.
See attached patch... I'm ready to work on so it can get merged in the next CF.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:44 AM David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>
> 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