Thread: rule problem
I created the following tables :
test=> create table updatableArchivable ( pk serial, dateupdate timestamp
default current_timestamp, code char(10));
test=> create view tbl_vw as select code from updatableArchivable;
test=> create table archive ( pk int, dateupdate timestamp, code char(10),
dateend timestamp default current_timestamp);
My aim is to make some test to see the best way to solve archiving &
presenting things simply.
I currently could have the code on updatableArchivable unique for all
safetyness.
Now I created a rule so the user can update the VIEW, as follow :
test=> create rule tbl_vw_insert as
test-> on insert to tbl_vw
test-> do instead
test-> insert into updatablearchivable (code) values (new.code);
This one works !
Now I want to be able to UPDATE the view & automatically generate an
archiving of the old value into the updatableArchivable table into the
archive table.
I tried to do the following :
test=> create rule tbl_vw_update as
test-> on update to tbl_vw
test-> do instead
test-> begin work
test-> insert into archive (pk, dateupdate, code) values (old.pk,
old.dateupdate, code);
***but it generated the following ***
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "begin"
test=> create rule test=> select * from father; _insert
I thought I could do smthg like :
do instead
begin work
Action_1;
Action_2;
Action_3;
commit work
Could some one suggest a better solution ?
I have never seen what happens if I set multiple rules.
Are they applied in the order they were created ?
Much tx,
thomas,
--
Thomas SMETS
rue J. Wytsmanstraat 62
1050 Bruxelles
yahoo-id : smetsthomas
tsmets@brutele.be wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I thought I could do smthg like :
> do instead
> begin work
> Action_1;
> Action_2;
> Action_3;
> commit work
>
> Could some one suggest a better solution ?
> I have never seen what happens if I set multiple rules.
> Are they applied in the order they were created ?
You cannot and don't need to do BEGIN and COMMIT as rule
actions. Write it as
do instead
(
Action_1;
Action_2;
Action_3;
);
and the actions will be perfomed in that order, all in one
and the same transaction.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
There is only one thing I cannotprotect myself from is my own stupidity ! Tx very much to remind me that :-)))))) thomas, -- Thomas SMETS rue J. Wytsmanstraat 62 1050 Bruxelles yahoo-id : smetsthomas ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Wieck" <janwieck@yahoo.com> To: <tsmets@brutele.be> Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: 25 March, 2002 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] rule problem > tsmets@brutele.be wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > I thought I could do smthg like : > > do instead > > begin work > > Action_1; > > Action_2; > > Action_3; > > commit work > > > > Could some one suggest a better solution ? > > I have never seen what happens if I set multiple rules. > > Are they applied in the order they were created ? > > You cannot and don't need to do BEGIN and COMMIT as rule > actions. Write it as > > do instead > ( > Action_1; > Action_2; > Action_3; > ); > > and the actions will be perfomed in that order, all in one > and the same transaction. > > > Jan > > -- > > #======================================================================# > # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # > # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # > #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com # > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > >