I'm trying to figure out why a rule gives me a uniqueness violation when I
try to do an update.
I have a table, "my_data", defined as:
create table my_data (id INT8 not null default nextval('person_seq'),effective_date_and_time TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE
notnull default
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,expiration_date_and_time TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE null default
'infinity',user_name VARCHAR(255)null,constraint PK_MY_DATA primary key
(effective_date_and_time, id)
);
I have a view, my_data_now, defined as:
SELECT my_data.id, my_data.user_name, my_data.effective_date_and_time, my_data.expiration_date_and_time
FROM my_data
WHERE my_data.effective_date_and_time <= 'now'::text::timestamp(6)
with time zone AND my_data.expiration_date_and_time >=
'now'::text::timestamp(6) with time zone;
And I have this rule (among others):
CREATE OR REPLACE RULE upd_my_data_now ASON UPDATE TO my_data_nowDO INSTEAD ( /* Update current record, and make
iteffective now. */ UPDATE my_data SET id = NEW.id, user_name = NEW.user_name,
effective_date_and_time=
('now'::text)::timestamp(6) with time zone WHERE effective_date_and_time =
OLD.effective_date_and_time AND id = OLD.id; /* Insert a record containing the old values, and
expireit as of now. */ INSERT INTO my_data ( effective_date_and_time, expiration_date_and_time,
id, user_name) VALUES ( OLD.effective_date_and_time,
('now'::text)::timestamp(6)with time zone, OLD.id, OLD.user_name) );
This rule is supposed to (1) cause an update directed to the view
"my_data_now" to be made to the underlying table "my_data", (2) reset the
"effective_date_and_time" of that row to 'now', (3) insert a record
containing the old values into "my_data", and (4) expire that "old" record
by setting its "expiration_date_and_time" to 'now'.
But when I try to do an update against the view "my_data_now" with a query
such as:
update my_data_now set user_name = 'Suzy' where id = 1;
I get:
ERROR: duplicate key violates unique constraint "pk_my_data"
Presumably this happens when the rule tries to insert the new row. The new
row does indeed contain the "old" id and effective_date_and_time. However,
the rule is structured so that the current row's "effective_date_and_time"
gets updated to 'now' *before* the new row is inserted, making its value
different from the old "effective_date_and_time". So the uniqueness
conflict shouldn't occur.
I figure either there's some bug in my code that I can't see, or else the
PostgreSQL rule processor works in some way that I don't understand.
In either case, help!
~ TIA
~ Ken