From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Omkar Rath" <orath(at)cisco(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Transaction Triggers! |
Date: | 2003-05-25 03:31:28 |
Message-ID: | 2996.1053833488@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Omkar Rath" <orath(at)cisco(dot)com> writes:
> Does Postgres triggers have an "after commit" clause or plans to do so
Such a thing sounds like a complete contradiction in terms to me. What
happens if you get an error in the "after commit" operation? You can't
roll back the transaction, it's already committed. Also, my
understanding of "transaction commit" is that it means all the actions
of the transaction are done and guaranteed not to be lost; which is
hardly possible to guarantee if some are not done yet.
> If NOT, then is there any way for developer's to have
> an "after-commit-do" mechanism?
Your application can do whatever it likes ... recognizing that it has no
guarantees about completion.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-25 03:41:49 | Re: Trigger in transaction |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-25 03:23:10 | Re: plpgsql vs. SQL performance |