On Fri, 27 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Same old same old: as soon as you've deleted from offer_mutable, there is no row in the view with the given offer_id; and since OLD is a macro for the view, the second delete finds nothing to do.
Oh, now I'm starting to see how this behavior does make sense...unwanted as it is in my case. Maybe I find it a bit weird that the sense of OLD.something can change within a rule, though.
You might be able to fix this by making the view an outer join, and deleting from the nullable side first.
Yuck. Though I'm already deep in "yuck" anyway.
The whole data structure seems a tad weird though ...
More than a tad. I'm not happy with this thing I've come up with. I'm really starting to think that I took the wrong path. What's a better way to express my intention? Perhaps the thing to do is go back to one table, and have a trigger that throws an exception if you try to update the "non-updatable" columns. (And only the test account can do deletes--if I need to do an update during testing, delete and insert is the answer.) What do you think? But as well, this is really also another instance of an area where functions work differently from things not in functions (and I tend to think that the way things work in functions in most of these cases is right). cjs -- Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.NetBSD.org Make up enjoying your city life...produced by BIC CAMERA ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
