""Karsten Hilbert"" <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:20100719182027.123920@gmx.net...
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Davor J. <DavorJ@live.com> wrote:
>> > It seems no secret that a child table will not fire a trigger defined
>> > on
>> > it's parent table. Various posts comment on this. But nowhere could I
>> find a
>> > reason for this.
>>
>> Do you want your trigger that redirects insert on parent table to the
>> proper child table should run on child tables too?
>
> Well, inheritance is not used for partitioning ONLY. So, yes, for *my*
> use cases I would appreciate being able to tell triggers defined on
> parent tables to run on child tables when an insert/update/delete
> happens on a child table. (We use inheritance for auditing and for
> data aggregation.)
>
> But since I am not in a position to code the necessary infrastructure
> I won't complain about the status quo.
>
> Karsten
>
For me Vick's question just proves that inheritance in relational databases
is a complex issue. It shows that trigger propagation is not always desired,
contrary to what I believed.
But I also have to concur with Karsten.
Regards,
Davor
