From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Michael Shulman" <shulman(at)mathcamp(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: tables referenced from insert...returning |
Date: | 2008-06-24 01:46:58 |
Message-ID: | 6670.1214272018@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Michael Shulman" <shulman(at)mathcamp(dot)org> writes:
> CREATE RULE _insert AS ON INSERT TO tv DO INSTEAD
> INSERT INTO test (name) VALUES (NEW.name) RETURNING NEW.*;
> ERROR: invalid reference to FROM-clause entry for table "*NEW*"
> LINE 2: INSERT INTO test (name) VALUES (NEW.name) RETURNING NEW.*;
> ^
> HINT: There is an entry for table "*NEW*", but it cannot be
> referenced from this part of the query.
Hmm ... that might be a bug, but in any case, wouldn't it be wiser to do
CREATE RULE _insert AS ON INSERT TO tv DO INSTEAD
INSERT INTO test (name) VALUES (NEW.name) RETURNING test.*;
Multiple evaluations of NEW in the text of a rule are a great way
to cause yourself trouble --- consider what happens if there's
a volatile function such as nextval() involved. It's almost always
safest to base RETURNING expressions on the already-stored data.
In the example at hand, your approach would lie about the stored
value of "id" anyway, since whatever NEW.id might be, it's not
likely to match the sequence-assigned id.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Shulman | 2008-06-24 02:42:40 | Re: tables referenced from insert...returning |
Previous Message | Michael Shulman | 2008-06-24 01:19:06 | tables referenced from insert...returning |