I pushed the commit to add the new parameter to the master branch. Let me know if works as expected.
Cheers, Daniel On 01/06/16 12:58, Aleš Šturm wrote: > > Excellent, > > > > I didn’t think about different db connectors. But, your proposal is > the best choice. If you are willing to prepare correction I can test > it. Please let me know. > > > > All the best, > > > > Ales > > > > *From:*Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:mico...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2016 12:38 PM > *To:* Aleš Šturm; 'Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List' > *Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] Wrong Publish status > > > > Hello, > > to have full flexibility here I am thinking of adding a new module > parameter to set the order-by string when the retrieve_order=1, as it > may be different for various db connectors. The default will be > 'priority', which is what is done right now. > > That will practically cover also the case of retrieve_order=0, where > the order by is done on received_time, but for backwards compatibility > I think it should stay there. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > On 01/06/16 12:20, Aleš Šturm wrote: > > Hello, > > > > yes, when retrieve_order=1, then order has to be combination of > columns »priority« and »received_time«, because there can be > multiple records with the same priority, but with different > received_time. And we would like to publish the newest status. > > > > > > My example: > > > > mysql> select id,username,received_time,priority from presentity > where username=3915 and event='presence' order by priority desc, > received_time desc; > > | id | username | received_time | priority | > > +----+----------+---------------+----------+ > > | 34 | 3915 | 1464775887 | 60 | > > | 33 | 3915 | 1464775876 | 60 | > > | 32 | 3915 | 1464775869 | 40 | > > | 30 | 3915 | 1464775844 | 40 | > > | 26 | 3915 | 1464775811 | 40 | > > | 35 | 3915 | 1464775894 | 20 | > > +----+----------+---------------+----------+ > > > > All the best, > > Ales > > > > > > *From:*Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:mico...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2016 11:47 AM > *To:* Aleš Šturm; 'Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List' > *Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] Wrong Publish status > > > > > > > > On 01/06/16 10:42, Aleš Šturm wrote: > > Hello, > > > > yes, if the priority is the same, records should be ordered by > received_time. Acting in this way, when “presentity” table has > more than one record of the same user with equal priority, to > watcher would be send Notify message with last received status. > > > > SQL like: > > select * from presentity where username=X and priority=Y order > by received_time desc; > > > > > > Well, the priority is not known in advance, query is like: > > select ... from presentity by matching the user and event, > ordering either by receive_time when retrieve_order=0 or by > priority if retrieve_order=1. > > Here it looks like order by has to be a combination of the two > columns. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > > > -- > > Daniel-Constantin Mierla > > http://www.asipto.com - http://www.kamailio.org > > http://twitter.com/#!/miconda <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda> - > http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda > > > > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla > http://www.asipto.com - http://www.kamailio.org > http://twitter.com/#!/miconda <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda> - > http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://www.asipto.com - http://www.kamailio.org http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
_______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
