Re: Is this correct behavior for ON DELETE rule?

From: "Rick Schumeyer" <rschumeyer(at)ieee(dot)org>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "'PgSql General'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is this correct behavior for ON DELETE rule?
Date: 2005-02-26 01:02:09
Message-ID: 000c01c51b9e$cede1210$0200a8c0@dell8200
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


I suspected that might be part of the answer.

Would some combination of triggers work instead? I've played
with those too, but without success.

>
> This is an ancient gotcha: as soon as you delete the book row, there is
> no longer any such entry in the bookview view ... and "old.id" is
> effectively a reference to the bookview view, so the second delete
> finds no matching rows.
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rick Schumeyer 2005-02-26 01:11:08 Re: Is this correct behavior for ON DELETE rule?
Previous Message Ron Mayer 2005-02-26 00:48:02 Re: [PATCHES] A way to let Vacuum warn if FSM settings are low.