From: Greg Stein [mailto:email@example.com]
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 02:59:31PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > Second, server triggers. We have a high-commitment option with
> > to server triggers,
[and then a discussion on how much better triggers might perform if
interpreters are linked directly into the code]
I've had a couple of thoughts on this subject:
1) Linking in any additional 3rd party code into a server process is
bad, especially one that tries to manage an ACID (aka transacted) store.
Yes, this is abject paranoia, but there you go. :)
2) Performance really shouldn't be much of an issue for triggers because
most triggers should be asynchronous triggers that fire after the commit
succeeds. (The server doesn't block, and doesn't care if the trigger
Remember, we're in transacted system land now. Triggers aren't part of
our non-existant two-phase commit system. You can't run triggers while
the transaction is outstanding. (It could abort.) One could make the
argument for synchronous triggers before the transaction even begins,
but that just extends the period of time that might cause other
transactions to come in and invalidate your work....
How about other peoples thoughts?
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:25 2006