From: | mikeo <mikeo(at)spectrumtelecorp(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: trigger question |
Date: | 2000-06-27 15:50:09 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20000627115009.009629f0@pop.spectrumtelecorp.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
At 11:27 AM 6/27/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>mikeo <mikeo(at)spectrumtelecorp(dot)com> writes:
>> in oracle, the triggers were smart enough to know not to reference
>> an old value on insert in an "insert or update" trigger procedure,
>> apparently.
>
>> this is the original oracle trigger that works fine
>> with the same insert statement:
>
>> CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER rates_hist_trigger
>> before insert or update on rates
>> for each row
>> WHEN (old.rt_valid <> 'P' or new.rt_valid not in ('Y','N'))
>
>Hmm. It sounds to me like Oracle treats the OLD fields as being NULL
>if the context is INSERT, which is something we could certainly do at
>the price of losing some error detection capability --- ie, if that
>really had been a typo as I first thought, the system wouldn't flag it
>for you.
>
>Not sure which way is better. Comments anyone?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
it would make the insert or update trigger more flexible, and ,
truly by an insert or update procedure, IMHO :), but is definitely not
a priority. creating a rule for each is just as quick as writing a
function with a trigger to call it.
mikeo
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hernan Gonzalez | 2000-06-27 16:37:55 | Re: puzzled by the docs |
Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2000-06-27 15:37:57 | Re: puzzled by the docs |