Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #2102: Backend reports wrong number of affected rows for a

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: bfraci(at)aol(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #2102: Backend reports wrong number of affected rows for a
Date: 2005-12-27 15:20:52
Message-ID: 23045.1135696852@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
bfraci(at)aol(dot)com writes:
> In my case we have an unconditional instead rule.  The original query was an update and the instead rule replaced it with an update of another table; an update was replaced with an update.  Then I should expect to see the status of the last query that was inserted by the instead rule.  So I should not see a status of zero.

Well, you'll see the status of the last UPDATE executed due to a rule
... but that doesn't mean it couldn't have updated zero rows.  It might
be worth pointing out here that conditional rules insert queries that
have the condition added to their WHERE clause; if the condition is
false then no rows are going to get processed.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-27 15:22:28
Subject: Re: BUG #2127: Regular Expression Limits Do Not Work
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-27 15:15:28
Subject: Re: BUG #2123: join between stored procedures

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group