If I understand your question you could use a 'row-trigger'
specificy initial filtering thru 'Trigger Restriction'
consequent specifics of which row to process can be handled in the 'Trigger Action'
Disclaimer and confidentiality note
Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relates to the official business of Sender. This transmission is of a confidential nature and Sender does not endorse distribution to any party other than intended recipient. Sender does not necessarily endorse content contained within this transmission.
> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:29:30 -0500
> From: shulman(at)mathcamp(dot)org
> To: dean_rasheed(at)hotmail(dot)com
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] what are rules for?
> CC: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org; tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us; kleptog(at)svana(dot)org; adam(dot)r(at)sbcglobal(dot)net
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:08 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean_rasheed(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > The Oracle "instead of" trigger ducks this issue completely. The
> > trigger is called once per row in the view that matches the top-level
> > "where" clause, and it is entirely up to the author of the trigger
> > function to work out what to update (if anything).
> That sounds like exactly the sort of thing I was envisioning.
> Although from what Tom said, it sounds as though "instead of" triggers
> in PostgreSQL would have to be implemented in a significantly
> different way from other triggers.
> How does an Oracle "instead of" trigger decide how many rows to tell
> the caller were updated? Can this "return value" be modified
> programmatically by the trigger?
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Bill Bartlett||Date: 2008-06-26 16:07:55|
|Subject: Re: Windows Crash|
|Previous:||From: Bob Pawley||Date: 2008-06-26 15:57:03|
|Subject: Windows Crash|