May 19, 2017 at 5:47 pm
I have wished for SQL Server BEFORE TRIGGERs for a long time. I have posted to Microsoft Connect (their feedback service) about this a few time. I finally put in a post to which they responded "Thanks to this idea. We understand the requirement and we are putting it into the backlog... If this feature gets more votes it would be reconsidered in future releases." Please check out
and, if you like it, please vote it up.
Sincerely,
Daniel
May 19, 2017 at 7:18 pm
I definitely voted that bad boy up. That was one of the things that I really liked about Oracle for the short 3 year stint that I had to work with it.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2017 at 11:37 am
May 20, 2017 at 2:33 pm
I just posted a plea and a link to this post on "the thread". I'd love to see "BEFORE Triggers" become a reality instead of those gosh-awful "Instead Of" triggers. I have little love in general for Oracle but this one of those things that Oracle absolutely did right from the git. It would make writing audit triggers a whole lot easier to prevent unnecessary duplication in audit tables, which become some of the biggest tables of them all.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 21, 2017 at 3:03 am
[/quote]
Another upvote. I like the idea in the item, allthough I'd like just implementing BEFORE triggers even better.
However, I do not share your dislike for INSTEAD OF triggers. They are a great tool for some specific purposes. I have used them to expose views as if they were the base tables, hiding the actual base tables, and allowing full updatability even when SQL Server itself would consider the view non-updatable or misunderstand how to change the base tables to correspond to the actual change,
May 21, 2017 at 8:30 am
Hugo Kornelis - Sunday, May 21, 2017 3:03 AMJeff Moden - Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:33 PMI just posted a plea and a link to this post on "the thread". I'd love to see "BEFORE Triggers" become a reality instead of those gosh-awful "Instead Of" triggers. I have little love in general for Oracle but this one of those things that Oracle absolutely did right from the git. It would make writing audit triggers a whole lot easier to prevent unnecessary duplication in audit tables, which become some of the biggest tables of them all.
Another upvote. I like the idea in the item, allthough I'd like just implementing BEFORE triggers even better.
However, I do not share your dislike for INSTEAD OF triggers. They are a great tool for some specific purposes. I have used them to expose views as if they were the base tables, hiding the actual base tables, and allowing full updatability even when SQL Server itself would consider the view non-updatable or misunderstand how to change the base tables to correspond to the actual change,
[/quote]
The more tools we have in our toolbox, the more choices we have to implement functionality. As long as they're written well, we can pick the right tool for the job.
Besides, AFTER triggers already exist, so aren't BEFORE triggers just logical?
May 21, 2017 at 11:20 am
Hugo Kornelis - Sunday, May 21, 2017 3:03 AMJeff Moden - Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:33 PMI just posted a plea and a link to this post on "the thread". I'd love to see "BEFORE Triggers" become a reality instead of those gosh-awful "Instead Of" triggers. I have little love in general for Oracle but this one of those things that Oracle absolutely did right from the git. It would make writing audit triggers a whole lot easier to prevent unnecessary duplication in audit tables, which become some of the biggest tables of them all.
Another upvote. I like the idea in the item, allthough I'd like just implementing BEFORE triggers even better.
However, I do not share your dislike for INSTEAD OF triggers. They are a great tool for some specific purposes. I have used them to expose views as if they were the base tables, hiding the actual base tables, and allowing full updatability even when SQL Server itself would consider the view non-updatable or misunderstand how to change the base tables to correspond to the actual change,
[/quote]
You misunderstand my dislike for "Instead Of" triggers. As you say, they ARE great for specific purposes. A perfect example is when the target of an insert is actually an updateable view built for one reason or another. Still, you have to control everything there instead of just what you need to control, whatever that may be.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 22, 2017 at 1:37 am
Jeff Moden - Sunday, May 21, 2017 11:20 AMHugo Kornelis - Sunday, May 21, 2017 3:03 AMJeff Moden - Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:33 PMI just posted a plea and a link to this post on "the thread". I'd love to see "BEFORE Triggers" become a reality instead of those gosh-awful "Instead Of" triggers. I have little love in general for Oracle but this one of those things that Oracle absolutely did right from the git. It would make writing audit triggers a whole lot easier to prevent unnecessary duplication in audit tables, which become some of the biggest tables of them all.Another upvote. I like the idea in the item, allthough I'd like just implementing BEFORE triggers even better.
However, I do not share your dislike for INSTEAD OF triggers. They are a great tool for some specific purposes. I have used them to expose views as if they were the base tables, hiding the actual base tables, and allowing full updatability even when SQL Server itself would consider the view non-updatable or misunderstand how to change the base tables to correspond to the actual change,
You misunderstand my dislike for "Instead Of" triggers. As you say, they ARE great for specific purposes. A perfect example is when the target of an insert is actually an updateable view built for one reason or another. Still, you have to control everything there instead of just what you need to control, whatever that may be.[/quote]
Considered the new Pirates of the Caribbean is released in 2 days, guess how I read the '...ARE....' in this reply ( #Palmface ) 😉
Johan
Learn to play, play to learn !
Dont drive faster than your guardian angel can fly ...
but keeping both feet on the ground wont get you anywhere :w00t:
- How to post Performance Problems
- How to post data/code to get the best help[/url]
- How to prevent a sore throat after hours of presenting ppt
press F1 for solution, press shift+F1 for urgent solution 😀
Need a bit of Powershell? How about this
Who am I ? Sometimes this is me but most of the time this is me
May 22, 2017 at 4:47 am
JediSQL - Friday, May 19, 2017 5:47 PMI have wished for SQL Server BEFORE TRIGGERs for a long time. I have posted to Microsoft Connect (their feedback service) about this a few time. I finally put in a post to which they responded "Thanks to this idea. We understand the requirement and we are putting it into the backlog... If this feature gets more votes it would be reconsidered in future releases." Please check outand, if you like it, please vote it up.
Done.
May 22, 2017 at 10:34 am
InterBase had both BEFORE and AFTER Triggers. I liked that as well, and having them in SQL Server would be a great addition.
May 22, 2017 at 12:10 pm
Lynn Pettis - Monday, May 22, 2017 10:34 AMInterBase had both BEFORE and AFTER Triggers. I liked that as well, and having them in SQL Server would be a great addition.
Wait... there's actually someone else besides me who's actually worked with InterBase??? I've worked with BEFORE triggers in Oracle and InterBase, and I've found using INSTEAD OF triggers to be a clumsy substitute... I've also voted for it
May 22, 2017 at 12:16 pm
Well, it's now up to 20 yes to 1 no.
May 22, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Chris Harshman - Monday, May 22, 2017 12:10 PMLynn Pettis - Monday, May 22, 2017 10:34 AMInterBase had both BEFORE and AFTER Triggers. I liked that as well, and having them in SQL Server would be a great addition.Wait... there's actually someone else besides me who's actually worked with InterBase??? I've worked with BEFORE triggers in Oracle and InterBase, and I've found using INSTEAD OF triggers to be a clumsy substitute... I've also voted for it
Briefly, we were actually comparing SCO/Unix, InterBase, and Delphi against Windows NT 4.0, SQL Server 6.5 and VB 6 at a previous employer. MS won out, but look where I am today. Not sure that would have happened with other option. I did like InterBase as a database system, our developer however found it a bit difficult to work with from VB 6.
May 22, 2017 at 2:27 pm
Ed Wagner - Monday, May 22, 2017 12:16 PMWell, it's now up to 20 yes to 1 no.
Heh... dollars to donuts the No vote was from Michael John. He hates triggers. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 22, 2017 at 2:46 pm
Jeff Moden - Monday, May 22, 2017 2:27 PMEd Wagner - Monday, May 22, 2017 12:16 PMWell, it's now up to 20 yes to 1 no.Heh... dollars to donuts the No vote was from Michael John. He hates triggers. 😉
He sure does. He might vote against it just because of that. The only real question is who would put up the dollars and who would put up the doughnuts. I enjoy them both. 😛
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply