On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Dean Rasheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This can almost be implemented in PostgreSQL right now, using a rule of > the form "... do instead select trigger_fn()" - except, as you point out, the > caller won't know how many rows were actually updated. As far as the > top-level query knows, it didn't update anything, which will break some > (most?) clients. Apart from that, this does actually work!
Yeah, I actually thought of that. But as you point out, many clients would get confused. Someone pointed out in an earlier thread that a way to fix this, for updates on a multi-table view (where most of the complication lies), is to write a "trigger" function that updates all the constituent tables except for one, and then write a rule that calls that function and then updates the one remaining table itself. This seems to work okay although I have not tested it with many clients. Mike -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
