| From: | Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Do "after update" trigger block the current transaction? | 
| Date: | 2013-03-26 13:24:56 | 
| Message-ID: | CAFvQSYQSv_kjvUnsFUzg7+j6ZdwhDQU6UBmnsRtsyTnmDsWzwA@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
Hi Richard,
>>  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.
Thanks for the clarification.
> Why not use one of the established trigger-based replication solutions?
Because the "other" database which I would like to keep in sync is a
MySQL db. Furthermore I do not need a 1:1 replica, but instead just
update a few columns in different tables there.
My inital plan was to add a timestamp-column which is updated at every
Update and to poll for changes every 5-10s. However, the word
"polling" seems to cause an allergic reaction for some poeple ;)
Thanks, Clemens
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-03-26 13:28:17 | Re: effective_io_concurrency on Windows | 
| Previous Message | Daniel Cristian Cruz | 2013-03-26 12:08:40 | Re: Bad plan on a huge table query |