From: | David Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rob Butler <crodster2k(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: DO INSTEAD and conditional rules |
Date: | 2005-04-26 22:06:31 |
Message-ID: | 79e6a42116d6cd9a74bb021041d3953a@kineticode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 26, 2005, at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... which indeed can be a feature, not a bug, depending on what you're
> doing ...
Absolutely. An INSERT rule I have looks like this:
CREATE RULE insert_one AS
ON INSERT TO one WHERE NEW.id IS NULL
DO INSTEAD (
INSERT INTO _simple (id, guid, state, name, description)
VALUES (NEXTVAL('seq_kinetic'), NEW.guid, NEW.state, NEW.name,
NEW.description);
INSERT INTO simple_one (id, bool)
VALUES (CURRVAL('seq_kinetic'), NEW.bool);
);
The call to NEXTVAL() in the first statement sets up a value I use in
the second via CURRLVA().
Cheers,
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Held | 2005-04-26 22:43:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested? |
Previous Message | Gurmeet Manku | 2005-04-26 22:00:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested? |