Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> * Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I assume this still refers to
> > [SQL] RULE for mtime recording
> > from last Friday.
>
> ehm, yeah. I forgot that I've already asked this stuff ...
> hmmpf. seems I'm not getting younger ;-)
>
> <snip>
> > I gave it another thought and
> > I am now having something which seems to work.
> > The trick is interpose a view to avoid the
> > rule recursion:
>
> <big_snip />
>
> correct me if I'm wrong:
>
> you dont let the application write to the actual storage table, but
> instead to a view, which a modified write to the actual storage, where
> also the reads get their data from.
Exactly.
>
> okay, that's really an idea worth to think about :)
>
> insert should work the same way. but how to implement delete ?
> (the application should only see one table, so in our case the view).
Exactly.
> if we user "DO INSTEAD", we wont get anything to delete (AFAIK), so
> we cannot intercept here. the only chance seems to leave out "INSTEAD"
> and live with duplicate data.
No. What's wrong with (referring to my previous post)
CREATE OR REPLACE RULE joo_delete
AS ON DELETE TO joo_view
DO INSTEAD
DELETE FROM joo
WHERE bar = OLD.bar ;
DELETE FROM joo_view WHERE bar = '...' ;
works perfectly for me
Or did I miss something here?
Regards, Christoph
>
> Did I miss anyting ?
>
> cu
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service
> phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/
> fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact@metux.de
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Realtime Forex/Stock Exchange trading powered by postgresSQL :))
> http://www.fxignal.net/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
