From: | hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
Cc: | fmiddleton(at)verizon(dot)net, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: freezing a particular field in a table |
Date: | 2005-11-24 07:38:47 |
Message-ID: | 9e4684ce0511232338t342ba64ena5a3a14c0cfaa555@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On 11/23/05, Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> wrote:
>
> IF NEW.some_field IS DISTINCT FROM OLD.some_field THEN
> IS DISTINCT FROM is like <> except that it treats NULL as an ordinary
> value.
thanks - i didn't know about this operator.
> CREATE TRIGGER impossible_to_change BEFORE UPDATE ON some_table FOR EACH
> ROW
> > EXECUTE PROCEDURE impossible_to_change();
> If the table has other triggers and you don't want them to modify
> the value either, then the check should probably go in an AFTER
> trigger.
>
i would rather use before anyway.
the problem with after is that in aftrer - all you can do is to raise
exception. while - if you would like to value to stick - you would ahve to
change the code *and* change trigger declaration. putting it in before
solves the problem.
of course there might be problem with another triggers, but that's another
story.
depesz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Johnson Zhao | 2005-11-24 10:02:44 | Problems when initdb on WinXP with SP2. |
Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-11-23 17:55:22 | Re: freezing a particular field in a table |