From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: feature request for Postgresql Rule system. |
Date: | 2006-12-19 06:25:45 |
Message-ID: | 16730.1166509545@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> My concern regarding the rule system is not related to the incorrect
> update count but the fact that my update statement was suppose to
> change BOTH name AND dresssize. However, as you see only the name was
> changed, dresssize remains unchanged. Therefore, I assumed that the
> update statement was not completed "atomically".
At no point did you show us details, but I suppose that this rule is
relying on a join view? Once you update one side of the join with a
different join key value, the join row in question no longer exists in
the view ... so the second update doesn't find a row to update. This
has nothing to do with ACID.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-19 06:28:03 | Re: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum |
Previous Message | Henrik Zagerholm | 2006-12-19 06:22:21 | Re: Let's play bash the search engine |