From: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Sven Schwyn <zeug(at)bluewin(dot)ch> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Modification Dates |
Date: | 2003-09-29 00:09:52 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0309290103420.31021-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Sven Schwyn wrote:
> Hi
>
> Many people are asking how to automatically update columns containing a
> modification date on updates. I'm wondering if the only solutions in
> the current pgsql really are...
>
> - adding "modification=NOW()" to every update query "manually"
> - defining a trigger called on updates
>
> While addings things "manually" is quite clumsy, a trigger actually
> causes a second update thus slowing down the Db.
>
I suspect you're misunderstanding something about triggers, an on update
trigger setting a such a field to the current timestamp shouldn't be causing a
second update. You're actually doing an update statement within the trigger I
presume? That's not the way, just set NEW.modified to the value you want,
eg. the current timestamp.
> As far as I know, rules don't help due to circular conditions (an
> update causes an update causes an update...) and functions stil require
> to add stuff to each and every update. But I could be wrong. Please -
> anyone - enlighten me, us and the world :-)
Does an update within a rule get rewritten by the rule system if it's on the
same table as the rule?
Nigel Andrews
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2003-09-29 00:12:51 | Re: Hesitate to write this: can't get at postgres.org |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-28 19:40:03 | Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta) |