Dmitry,

> Would it be architectually correct and feasable to put
> > a trigger on connection/disconnection to a database?
>
> Yes, I think so. And this is registered in our feature request tracker.

But

> I'm not sure I like the term "trigger" in this context. Such an object has
> enough semantical differences from a regular trigger. It doesn't have
> OLD/NEW contexts, it doesn't make sense to have before connect/after
> disconnect triggers, etc. For me, it's just a procedure that's

automatically

> executed by the engine in the autonomous transaction. I'd rather call it

an

> event handler, but it may cause confusion with the existing events
> mechanism.

FYI, other DBMS systems call them triggers.

There are different triggers:

DML triggers (which is what we have)

DDL triggers (eg: create ddl trigger on create table)

and database/schema triggers.

The latter would be be what we're talking about.

Given that a certain action still "triggers" the routine, I'd say the name
is
just fine.

Also given the consistency with other systems.

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
http://blog.upscene.com/martijn/
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com