I'm glad your curiosity got the best of you ;o) I was planning to test it out, but didn't have the time to do it. I too, was very curious as to what the ramifications of dropping the trigger would be in that scenario. Now, we know :o) On Monday 24 January 2005 11:07 pm, Jeff Davis saith: > It got me curious enough that I tested it, and apparently droping a > trigger locks the table. Any actions on that table must wait until the > transaction that drops the trigger finishes. > > So, technically my system works, but requires a rather nasty lock while > the transaction (the one that doesn't want the trigger to execute) > finishes. > > Yours doesn't require any special locking, so it seems yours would be > the preferred solution. > > Regards, > Jeff Davis > > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 13:45 -0500, Terry Lee Tucker wrote: > > I don't know if droping a trigger inside a transaction will work. Besides > > that, we want the trigger to do its work in all other circumstances. With > > a hundred connections on the database, I don't know what kind of issues > > that would cause if the trigger were there, and suddenly, not there. We > > figured this was a safe approach. > > Work: 1-336-372-6812 Cell: 1-336-363-4719 email: terry@xxxxxxxx ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
