Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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
