> CSN wrote:
> > Perhaps another possible feature request! I've
looked
> > through the docs and it doesn't appear that it's
> > possible to create deferred triggers - i.e. they
don't
> > get called unless the current transaction commits.
>
> The semantics of such a thing appear to be
indeterminate. What happens
> if something in the trigger would have caused the
original transaction
> to fail? Most people would expect all changes made
by the original
> transaction, as well as those made by the trigger,
to be rolled back.
> Using deferred triggers as you've defined it would
then require chainged
> transactions, which could get very messy.
That doesn't sound too messy - the trigger could
either cause the current transaction to abort, or
commit.
> > (My understanding
> > is that they currently get called immediately
whether or not there is
> > a transaction in progress.)
>
> There is always a transaction in progress.
I meant when you explicitly enclose multiple statments
in a single transaction.
>
> --
> Guy Rouillier
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
