Re: Trigger on shared tables

"Anurag Varma" <avarmadba.skipthis_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:yuu1b.479$Jq1.13_at_nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>
> "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
>
>

Also look at the thread above named "dbms_alerts on multiple updates" for ideas posted by others.

Thanks,
Anurag Received on Fri Aug 22 2003 - 14:55:35 CDT