Re: Trigger on shared tables

"Harald Maier" <maierh_at_myself.com> wrote in message news:m3zni2g86x.fsf_at_ate.maierh...
>
> Stefan Rupp <st.rupp_at_t-online.de> writes:
>
> > Good evening,
> >
> > Harald Maier schrieb:
> >> As far as I understand, waitone should be enough. But I would not use
> >> 'for each row' in the trigger definition and also you should think
> >> about Anruag's words: it might be _overkill_. The trigger will be
> >> executed on commit.
> >
> > Okay, if a trigger with dbms_alert is considered as overkill, what
> > other mechanisms are more appropriate? I would be grateful for
> > suggestions.
>
> Personally, I think if you have moderate modifications to the table
> then it should be ok. If you have lots of committed changes to the
> table then why not poll the table. Another possibility would be to
> combine both methods. One loop listens to the signal. Another loop
> updates the viev.
>
> Harald

.. additing to this. If the inserts/updates are that frequent, why not just call the C++ function via the trigger? You can do that also.

Anurag Received on Fri Aug 22 2003 - 14:50:54 CDT