From: | Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
Cc: | General PostgreSQL List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Are updateable view as a linked table in ms-access a bad idea? |
Date: | 2006-12-12 18:13:04 |
Message-ID: | 546825.50900.qm@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Please show us your exact view, table and rule definitions
> used by this example.
> > ^^^^^^^^ <-- update 0 is false
> I guess what you are seeing are "partial updates" of the view
> caused by a multi-action rule which doesn't see the updated
> tuple in its subsequent actions anymore. This happens if you try
> to update the referencing key field of a parent table which doesn't
> get propagated to the joined tables, for example. Again, provide
> your object definitions and we could say more (didn't find the
> vwife view and its update rules by following your provided links).
Here are the table,view, and update rule definitions: <thanks for the help>
CREATE SEQUENCE public.person_seq
INCREMENT BY 1
START WITH 1;
CREATE TABLE public.person
(
id integer primary key not null
default nextval('public.person_seq'),
name varchar(30) unique not null
);
ALTER SEQUENCE public.person_seq OWNED BY public.person.id;
CREATE TABLE public.wife
(
id integer primary key
references person(id),
dresssize integer not null
);
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW public.vwife (id, name, dresssize) AS
SELECT
A.id, A.name, B.dresssize
FROM
public.person as A
INNER JOIN
public.wife as B
ON
A.id = B.ID;
CREATE OR REPLACE RULE
vwife_update
AS ON UPDATE TO
public.vwife
DO INSTEAD
(
UPDATE
public.person
SET
name = NEW.name
WHERE
id = OLD.id;
UPDATE
public.wife
SET
dresssize = NEW.dresssize
WHERE
id = OLD.id
);
Thanks for the consideration :-)
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Wes | 2006-12-12 18:19:02 | Database-based alternatives to tsearch2? |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2006-12-12 17:58:17 | Re: date comparisons |