Re: pgmemcache

[Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>]

Christian Storm <christian(dot)storm(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Not sure if I follow why this is a problem.  Seems like it would be  
> beneficial to have both BEFORE and AFTER COMMIT triggers.
> With the BEFORE COMMIT trigger you would have the ability to 'un- 
> commit' (rollback) the transaction.  With
> the AFTER COMMIT trigger you wouldn't have that option because the  
> commit has already been successful.  However,
> with an AFTER COMMIT you would be able to trigger other downstream  
> events that rely on a transaction successfully committing.

An AFTER COMMIT trigger would have to be in a separate transaction.
What happens if there's more than one, and one of them fails?  Even
more to the point, if it's a separate transaction, don't you have
to fire all these triggers again when you commit that transaction?
The idea seems circular.

			regards, tom lane