Re: feature request for Postgresql Rule system.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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