| From: | David Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Rob Butler <crodster2k(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: DO INSTEAD and conditional rules |
| Date: | 2005-04-27 02:00:44 |
| Message-ID: | a8d72cf4fc7867a60b5362dc4dabc64e@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 26, 2005, at 5:02 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> The multi-action rules usually come into play when someone attempts to
> make join-views updatable. Not an easy problem, granted, but most of
> the time I have found a combination of rules together with ON
> UPDATE/DELETE CASCADE constraints or even user defined triggers
> absolutely sufficient. The INSERT and UPDATE case is handled by rules
> as usual. And in the DELETE case the rule just deletes the critical
> rows and the ON DELETE CASCADE constraints do the rest.
Yes, this is what I'm finding, too. But it would be good if the
documentation better reflected that this is how it works.
Regards,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-27 03:00:05 | Re: [proposal] protocol extension to support loadable stream filters |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-04-27 01:49:22 | Disable large objects GUC |