Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma@yahoo.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
