From: | Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Rule trouble (looks to me exactly like the example) |
Date: | 2002-04-07 14:15:19 |
Message-ID: | 20020407161519.A9927@superfly.archi-me-des.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:42:18AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)de> writes:
> >> What's happening is that "new.id" is effectively still NULL at the point
> >> where the rule is processed, so the rule WHERE condition fails. I'm not
> >> sure why you're bothering with that WHERE condition anyway ...
>
> > Without the WHERE condition, all rows are affected by the update, and
> > not just the newly inserted one.
>
> I was speaking of the WHERE new.id > 0 part.
Oh yes, that's silly indeed. I just put it there to make the query look like
the example.
> However, given that you
> want to affect only the newly-inserted row, ISTM you'd be a lot better
> off with a trigger instead of a rule.
I'll give that a try!
Thanks, Frank
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ian Cass | 2002-04-08 12:35:28 | JOINS and non use of indexes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-06 15:45:35 | Re: intersect performance (PG 7.1.3 vs 7.2) |