| From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do "after update" trigger block the current transaction? |
| Date: | 2013-03-26 11:22:18 |
| Message-ID: | 515184EA.1000903@archonet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 26/03/13 08:52, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are currently evaluating the feasibility of executing long-running
> scripts written in shell-script (plsh) called by triggers (after
> update/insert) to synchronize two databases. Will triggers (after
> update specifically) cause the execution of SQL-commands to pause
> until the trigger-function has returned (at statement execution time
> or commit)?
The trigger will block. If it didn't then it couldn't abort the
transaction if it needed to.
> The other possible approach would be to use polling on some
> trigger-updated timestamp-column, which is not pretty but should be
> fairly simple.
Why not use one of the established trigger-based replication solutions?
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2013-03-26 11:28:59 | Re: PostgreSQL service terminated by query |
| Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2013-03-26 08:59:19 | Re: Acess Oracle with dbi-link (PostgreSQL) Error Compile |