One of my tables has both an "after update" and an "instead of delete" trigger. When I perform a delete within the after update trigger, the instead of delete trigger is not fired. Although I don't actually want the instead of delete
trigger to fire in this particular case, I'm troubled by the fact that I haven't seen anything in the documentation that indicates it shouldn't. If I understand correctly, the recursion is indirect, and hence, should not be prevented by RECURSIVE_TRIGGERS
disabled (the setting in my database).
The only thing I found in the docs that seemed close to explaining what I'm seeing is the following from the SQL Server 2008 R2 documentation:
If an INSTEAD OF trigger defined on a table executes a statement against the table that would ordinarily fire the INSTEAD OF trigger again, the trigger is not called recursively. Instead, the statement is processed as if the table had no INSTEAD OF trigger and starts the chain of constraint operations and AFTER trigger executions. For example, if a trigger is defined as an INSTEAD OF INSERT trigger for a table, and the trigger executes an INSERT statement on the same table, the INSERT statement executed by the INSTEAD OF trigger does not call the trigger again. The INSERT executed by the trigger starts the process of performing constraint actions and firing any AFTER INSERT triggers defined for the table.
This statement, however, applies only to the case in which the statement triggering the recursive call to the instead of delete trigger is itself within the instead of delete trigger. In my case, the delete statement in question is in an after update trigger, so the statement from the docs seems not to apply.
I noticed that at least one other user has been puzzled by this behavior:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1387252-23-1.aspx
Still no response to his post...
Does anyone know what's going on here? I could explicitly disable triggers before executing the delete statement within the after update trigger, but I don't want to do this unnecessarily...
Thanks,
Brett S.
The only thing I found in the docs that seemed close to explaining what I'm seeing is the following from the SQL Server 2008 R2 documentation:
If an INSTEAD OF trigger defined on a table executes a statement against the table that would ordinarily fire the INSTEAD OF trigger again, the trigger is not called recursively. Instead, the statement is processed as if the table had no INSTEAD OF trigger and starts the chain of constraint operations and AFTER trigger executions. For example, if a trigger is defined as an INSTEAD OF INSERT trigger for a table, and the trigger executes an INSERT statement on the same table, the INSERT statement executed by the INSTEAD OF trigger does not call the trigger again. The INSERT executed by the trigger starts the process of performing constraint actions and firing any AFTER INSERT triggers defined for the table.
This statement, however, applies only to the case in which the statement triggering the recursive call to the instead of delete trigger is itself within the instead of delete trigger. In my case, the delete statement in question is in an after update trigger, so the statement from the docs seems not to apply.
I noticed that at least one other user has been puzzled by this behavior:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1387252-23-1.aspx
Still no response to his post...
Does anyone know what's going on here? I could explicitly disable triggers before executing the delete statement within the after update trigger, but I don't want to do this unnecessarily...
Thanks,
Brett S.