From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Radoslaw Stachowiak <radek(at)alter(dot)pl> |
Cc: | <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: update in rule |
Date: | 2001-11-07 17:07:49 |
Message-ID: | 20011107090403.K49204-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-sql |
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Radoslaw Stachowiak wrote:
> *** Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> [Wednesday, 17.October.2001, 12:04 -0700]:
> > create function adresses_trigger() returns opaque as '
> > begin
> > NEW.date_maj := now();
> > return NEW;
> > end;' language 'plpgsql';
> > create trigger tr before update on adresses for each row execute
> > procedure adresses_trigger();
>
> why sould I use before (instead of after)?
> isnt it a little dangerous in transactions? /hope not/
>
> I know difference between both forms. The question is rather about if
> timestamp updating shouldnt be run AFTER update which I think is closer
> to a real world situations (of course evth vary). But maybe there are
> some probles with after, which I dont know about?
It's pretty much 6 of one, half dozen of another AFAICS. This doesn't
actually update the table per-se, it updates the copy of the row that
you've asked to update the row to. The actual update changes the date
column.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nick Sayer | 2001-11-07 17:50:01 | Re: Problems with user-level security |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-11-07 17:03:52 | Re: Problems with user-level security |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-11-07 17:14:19 | Re: Need help with embedded CASEs |
Previous Message | John D. Rozeboom | 2001-11-07 16:53:55 | Re: Need help with embedded CASEs |