roger wrote:
>Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in news:1066949322.260859
>@yasure:
>
>
>
>>roger wrote:
>>AFTER UPDATE trigger writes notification to a table
>>
>>DBMS_PIPE sends communication directly to C program
>>
>>
>
>
>Thanks for the reply.
>
>Why the intermediary step of writing to the table?
>Why not just write the notification data to the pipe?
>
>
>The other way I imagined was to create an external 'C'
>routine that would queue messages (perhaps to a UNIX pipe:)
>rather than using the DBMS_PIPE package.
>But hey, if DBMS_PIPE is easier, that's fine with me:)
>
>Either way - one wrinkle I forsee is that the pipe
>reader will potentially be notified before the
>change to the table is comitted, or perhaps even rolled back.
>
>Is there any mechanism to cause a trigger like this
>to fire only after the transaction is comitted?
>
>I don't see it off hand.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>
That was intended as two independent suggestions. Sorry if it looked
like step 1, step 2.
--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Received on Fri Oct 24 2003 - 00:05:42 CDT
