From: | Marc Boucher <achernar(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Problem with sequence et rule |
Date: | 2004-08-01 22:31:05 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.5.32.20040802003105.00802b50@pop.gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
At 21:28 31/07/2004 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Now my questions are:
>>> - Is this an expected behavior ?
> It is. Rules are essentially macros and so you have all the usual
> potential gotchas with multiple evaluations of their input arguments.
I've understood what was done by the evaluation process. I was just
expecting that the "NEW" variable would contain the inserted values (after
all it contains correct values for non-sequence columns).
> The recommended way to handle this type of problem is with a trigger
> rather than a rule.
I've changed this operation into a trigger, and it works like a charm. The
function receives the correct values, even the oid (which "rule" doesn't
provide).
I've since modified my queries to use the unified table, and I've gained
approx. 25-35% of execution time. Interesting on an admin page that takes
seconds to generate (hundreds of table lookups).
Thanks for your help.
--
Marc
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2004-08-02 19:35:52 | Re: 7.5dev assertion failure w/ v3 protocol and transactions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-01 01:28:29 | Re: Problem with sequence et rule |