That looks reasonable...
On 8/20/07, Francois Orsini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Javier, > > I guess and I may be wrong that the main reason for not allowing DDL > operation in a trigger is due to the fact that a DDL operation will get > implicitly committed, and as a trigger is always called in the context of a > transaction, it cannot allow an implicit (in this case) commit of a DDL > statement, neither an explicit commit... > > --francois > > On 8/20/07, Javier Fonseca V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Yes. I agree with the importance of the footprint. I don't know if DDL > > in Triggers would be too hard/big/convenient to implement, but the Derby > > Team must have their reasons. > > > > Anyway, it looks like I'll have to call the procedure directly in the > > application that I'm designing... that doesn't look so hard... > > > > Thanks for your replies. > > > > Javier > > > > > > > > On 8/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a comment… > > > > > > > > > > > > Just because another database can do something doesn't mean that it's > > > necessarily a good idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > The other issue with Derby is that until someone determines a way to > > > create a "plug n play" architecture of features, it becomes more important > > > to decide if Derby is going to be a "full fledged" database, or a > > > lightweight embedded database. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you increase the size of the footprint, you make it harder to > > > embed. And as you add features, you are increasing the size of the > > > footprint. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > *From:* Francois Orsini [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2007 5:26 AM > > > *To:* Derby Discussion > > > *Subject:* Re: DDL in Trigger Procedure > > > > > > > > > > > > Javier, > > > > > > DDL statements are not allowed in triggers, directly or via a > > > procedure called from a trigger. I checked the codeline. > > > > > > --francois > > > > > > On 8/19/07, *Javier Fonseca V.* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hello. I'm trying to do a trigger that fires after an INSERT INTO a > > > table. > > > > > > > > > > > > This trigger will call a Java procedure that performs some operations > > > in the Database ... and then decide to CREATE TABLE according to a > > > sequence for later local replication purposes. > > > > > > > > > > > > But I can't make it work. It's failing in the CREATE TABLE step. It > > > looks like DDL is not supported in Derby Triggers, even if they are in a > > > stored procedure. If I call the procedure manually with some test values, > > > it works. But I need it to work it triggered in Derby. I already did it > > > in > > > PostgreSQL (master DB) and I don't know why Derby doesn't allow me to do > > > the > > > same. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your replies, > > > > > > > > > > > > Javier Fonseca > > > > > > Barranquilla, Colombia > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
