Lynn Pettis (3/16/2013)

---

brettstahlman (3/16/2013)

---

Lynn Pettis (3/16/2013)

---

brettstahlman (3/16/2013)

---

opc.three (3/16/2013)

---

The reason why I disagree is because of the behavior of the after trigger when it is the instead trigger that is fired...

opc.three (3/16/2013)

---

I agree in so far as I could not find anything in spec related to this behavior, but not that it signifies any type of bug. I do not...

Lynn Pettis (3/16/2013)

---

brettstahlman (3/16/2013)

---

opc.three (3/16/2013)

---

The reason why I disagree is because of the behavior of the after trigger when it is the instead trigger that is fired first. The instead...

opc.three (3/16/2013)

---

The reason why I disagree is because of the behavior of the after trigger when it is the instead trigger that is fired first. The instead trigger fires the...

opc.three (3/15/2013)

---

brettstahlman (3/15/2013)

---

I agree that the "instead of delete" trigger will not be fired, but because the docs seem to indicate that it should be[/u], I don't feel comfortable relying...

I agree that the "instead of delete" trigger will not be fired, but because the docs seem to indicate that it should be, I don't feel comfortable relying on the...

Still, the case you've constructed is fundamentally different, as it involves an insert within an insert, which is inherently recursive. Mine involves a delete within an after insert, which would...

I am not convinced your use case qualifies as indirect recursion since the action in the AFTER trigger does not cause the INSTEAD trigger to fire. If it did, and...

Thanks. Hopefully someone from the SQL Server team will weigh in on this, as it appears there may be an error in the documentation/spec. I started to call it an...

The case you have constructed does indeed involve direct recursion (as defined by the docs) and is fundamentally different from mine: you're executing an insert statement from within an instead...