Christian Storm <christian.storm@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Not sure if I follow why this is a problem. Seems like it would be > beneficial to have both BEFORE and AFTER COMMIT triggers. > With the BEFORE COMMIT trigger you would have the ability to 'un- > commit' (rollback) the transaction. With > the AFTER COMMIT trigger you wouldn't have that option because the > commit has already been successful. However, > with an AFTER COMMIT you would be able to trigger other downstream > events that rely on a transaction successfully committing. An AFTER COMMIT trigger would have to be in a separate transaction. What happens if there's more than one, and one of them fails? Even more to the point, if it's a separate transaction, don't you have to fire all these triggers again when you commit that transaction? The idea seems circular. regards, tom lane
