Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> writes:
>> Basically, I'm wondering if anyone can see a problem with my standard
>> workaround to the macro-expansion-vs-nextval problem with view.
>
>> CREATE FUNCTION foobar_ins_fn(p_f1 int4, p_b1 int4) RETURNS void AS $$
>> BEGIN
>> INSERT INTO foo (f_id, f1) VALUES (nextval('foo_f_id_seq'), p_f1);
>> INSERT INTO bar (f_id, b1) VALUES (currval('foo_f_id_seq'), p_b1);
>> END;
>> $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
>
>> CREATE RULE foobar_good_ins AS ON INSERT TO foobar_good
>> DO INSTEAD SELECT foobar_ins_fn(NEW.f1, NEW.b1);
>
> The main problem with this is that instead of an "INSERT n" command
> completion response, you'll get back a useless SELECT result and then
> "INSERT 0" (because the original INSERT was suppressed by the INSTEAD
> rule). If your application can deal with that, it's OK, but some don't
> like it ...
I can live with that, so long as there's no
extremely-clever-look-inside-plpgsql feature anyone is planning.
-- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
