# Transaction Group "Template" **URL:** \ **Category:** Ignition\ **Created:** [September 26, 2012, 5:15pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/transaction-group-template/5199 "2012-09-26T17:15:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jimhuey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@jimhuey](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/jimhuey)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 5:15pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/transaction-group-template/5199/1 "2012-09-26T17:15:58Z")
It would be useful to have a “template” or master type for transaction groups. Block transaction groups give me some of the functionality I need, but I found them to be too limiting. It would be very useful if such a template could be linked to a User Defined Type so that the appropriate transaction group would be created for each instance of the UDT. ---
**Author:** ![chi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/0ea827/32.png) [@chi](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/chi)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/transaction-group-template/5199/2 "2012-09-26T17:45:43Z")
Yes, that would be a nice feature. What about having record functionality added directly to UDT’s, maybe with a custom trigger like in the transaction groups? ---
**Author:** ![Colby.Clegg](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/colby.clegg/32/3282_2.png) [@Colby.Clegg](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/Colby.Clegg)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 11:09pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/transaction-group-template/5199/3 "2012-09-27T23:09:32Z")
Those are both interesting ideas. The idea of a group that operated on a specific UDT type, and then automatically adjusted to new or removed instances would be great. We’re hoping to put some work into the SQL Bridge for a new major version soon, so I’ll add this idea to that milestone. Regards,