From: | "Jefim Matskin" <JefimM(at)sphera(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FW: BUG in trigger and foreign keys |
Date: | 2002-12-25 07:55:58 |
Message-ID: | A27FEC8516051048B5B3A119BC0D8CB65B1ABA@exch2k.spheranet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thank you for pointing that out. It seems that "oops I did it again".
What are the rules for the order of the invocation of triggers defined for some table?
If several triggers are defined which one if executed first?
Jefim
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Wed 25 December 2002 6:08
To: Jefim Matskin
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] FW: BUG in trigger and foreign keys
"Jefim Matskin" <JefimM(at)sphera(dot)com> writes:
> If try it with the same script - but without the constraints - you will see the difference.
> And there should not be any since the data is the same in the tables.
No, it's not the same. Consider the implications of the constraint
you added:
ALTER TABLE reseller ADD CONSTRAINT FK_reseller_parent
FOREIGN KEY (parent_id) REFERENCES reseller(reseller_id)
ON DELETE CASCADE ON UPDATE CASCADE;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This will cause the delete of reseller_id 1338 to propagate to the rows
in which 1338 appears as parent_id. Which sure looks to me like it's
the behavior you're complaining of.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-12-26 03:09:12 | Re: Multiple Foreign Keys to same table and field |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-25 04:07:58 | Re: FW: BUG in trigger and foreign keys |