> 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
