| From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why do OLD and NEW have special internal names? |
| Date: | 2009-11-20 05:30:54 |
| Message-ID: | 4B06298E.5010507@Yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/20/2009 1:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>> But this brings up another point about the recent discussion of what
>> RENAME is good for. Removing RENAME may conflict with using OLD/NEW in
>> UPDATE ... RETURNING. No?
>
> Um ... not sure why. Specific example please?
>
> regards, tom lane
Inside a trigger proc, NEW is supposed to mean the new row for the table
that fired the trigger. However, inside an UPDATE RETURNING for example,
there is another set of NEW and OLD. Let's call the trigger call's NEW
NEW_a and the UPDATE RETURNING NEW NEW_b. How would the developer
specify something like
INSERT ... RETURNING (NEW_a.value - NEW_b.value)?
Jan
--
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither
liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikhil Sontakke | 2009-11-20 05:44:58 | Re: Syntax for partitioning |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-11-20 04:36:59 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |