Re: Odd plpgsql behaviour

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:12:24 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne
<chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> On 7.4:
>
> This is what we wanted to do:
>
> IF TG_OP = 'INSERT' OR (TG_OP = 'UPDATE' AND NEW.name != OLD.name) THEN
> EXECUTE x;
> END IF;
>
> However, we had to write it like this:
>
> IF TG_OP = 'INSERT' THEN
> EXECUTE x;
> ELSIF TG_OP = 'UPDATE' AND NEW.name != OLD.name THEN
> EXECUTE x;
> END IF;
>
> Because in the first case it would complain that OLD.name wasn't
> defined, if the trigger was NOT an update.
>
> OK, but the second case works??!?! Is this a weird peculiarity of the
> pl/pgsql lazy evaluation rules? Why doesn't the first one work if the
> second one does?

IIRC, the reason for this is that the entire IF test is passed to the
SQL engine as a SELECT statement after replacing the TG_* identifiers
with their respective values.

Your first example is essentially

IF (SELECT (TG_OP = 'INSERT' OR (TG_OP = 'UPDATE' AND NEW.name !=
OLD.name) IS TRUE) ...

In this case, since OLD.name does not exist during INSERT it cannot be
replaced. Perhaps someone else can shed a little more light on this.

--
Mike Rylander
mrylander(at)gmail(dot)com
GPLS -- PINES Development
Database Developer