Re: feature request for Postgresql Rule system.

From: Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: General PostgreSQL List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: feature request for Postgresql Rule system.
Date: 2006-12-19 01:09:37
Message-ID: 531936.24951.qm@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> Actually, I am seeing some unexpected behavior, or rather behavior that
> I wouldn't expect. After the first UPDATE in the rule, NEW and OLD are
> gone.

I guess the end-result behaviour I am looking for (as you mentioned) is having an update-able view
behave exactly as if it were a table in regard to update and delete statements. (Delete
statements had a similar behavior behaviour, but I got around that problem by using "delete
cascade" on the leaf tables.)

Regards,

Richard Broersma Jr.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2006-12-19 01:36:38 Re: feature request for Postgresql Rule system.
Previous Message Reece Hart 2006-12-19 01:04:21 Re: Let's play bash the search engine