Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > I'm not convinced. Right now, it's fairly useless - all the triggers > could possibly do is throw an error, and an error is going to get > thrown anyway, so it's only a question of which error message the user > will see. But we discussed before the idea of adding a capability for > BEFORE triggers to request that the actual execution of the command > get skipped, and then it's possible to imagine this being useful. > Someone could even use a command trigger that detects which machine > it's running on, and if it's the standby, uses dblink to execute the > command on the master, or something crazy like that. Command triggers > could also be useful for logging all attempts to execute a particular > command, which is probably still appropriate on the standby.
There are some other use cases, like using plsh to go apt-get install an extension's package when you see the master just created it, so that your read only queries on the hot standby have a chance of loading the code you need. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
