I don't think that a trigger is the best place for a lengthy processing. The trigger can writhe req info into an intermediate table and trigger a process on the server using SQL Server Agent.

>Folks,
>
>Let's say that I want a trigger to fire when I save a record to a table, such as updating a summary table when a detail is added or changed. But, I do not want the user to have to wait for it to finish.
>
>Is it possible, using asynchronous connections or by some other method, that when I issue a TableUpdate, the user will not have to wait for the trigger to fire and complete?
>
>TIA...