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

Re: question on UPDATE rules

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Matthew Denny <mdenny(at)CS(dot)Berkeley(dot)EDU>
Cc: pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: question on UPDATE rules
Date: 2000-04-23 00:06:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-sql
Matthew Denny <mdenny(at)CS(dot)Berkeley(dot)EDU> writes:
> I have a rule defined as the following:

> UPDATE TO VectorMessageTable WHERE new.acks = (SELECT
> numReplicas FROM VectorTable vt WHERE vt.ID =
> new.ID) DO (DELETE FROM VectorMessageTable WHERE ID = new.ID AND
> versionNum = new.versionNum);

> if I call: 

> UPDATE VectorMessageTable SET acks =
> <corresponding-numReplicas-from-VectorTable>

> Then I the update goes through, but none of the records are
> deleted. However, if I run any other subsequent update on these tuples in
> VectorMessageTable (even ones that change the acks value) then the
> rule fires and the tuples are deleted.

Not sure, but maybe you want DO INSTEAD DELETE ... rather than just
DO DELETE ... ?  As it stands, you're commanding the machine to both
delete and update the tuples for which the rule fires.  I think that
will result in the old tuple being marked deleted (twice!), but the
update will still produce a new tuple that's not marked deleted.
That seems to match your symptoms...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-04-23 13:47:48
Subject: Re: Date_part & cast.
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-04-22 23:47:51
Subject: Re: Date_part & cast.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group