Re: "All triggers are evil",..., really?

From: Connor McDonald <>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 21:48:30 +0800
Message-ID: <>

In perhaps a perverse way, I'd be bigger fan of triggers if you could *not* disable them...Then people would have to *really* sit down and think about whether the trigger they are about to implement is a genuine implementation of a rule (eg audit, complex constraint) versus a convenience that could/should have been coded in the application ...

I always find it hilarious when you have to wear the day-to-day hit of capturing changes to every row on every row due to some "cast hard in concrete business rule of - thou shalt audit everything" ....but then take a system outage because a large scale data change has to occur, and the same people then insert ...*"but we don't want to audit that*" comes along the line...

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Niall Litchfield <> wrote:
> Toon,
> I suspect that for a lot of us this comes back to the old argument of
> do you store business logic" most, if not all data constraints are really
> business rules - even if not directly expressed as such , "each order line
> must be associated with an order" is also a business rule for example.
> probably no surprise that I agree with you that the business rules that
> directly affect data should be stored along with the data, not least
> it's likely that other applications will come along that should also be
> subject to the same business rules. In fact I'd be willing to bet that
> Tom's name := first_name||' '||last_name example came about precisely
> because two sets of people hadn't agreed on what the business rules were
> isn't really a technology problem at all.

Connor McDonald

"Semper in excremento, sole profundum qui variat"

Received on Wed Sep 03 2008 - 08:48:30 CDT

Original text of this message