On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:04:45 -0700, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Seb <spluque@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> CREATE RULE footwear_nothing_upd AS ON UPDATE TO footwear DO >> INSTEAD NOTHING; CREATE RULE footwear_newshoelaces_upd AS ON >> UPDATE TO footwear WHERE NEW.sl_name <> OLD.sl_name AND >> OLD.sl_name IS NULL DO INSERT INTO shoelaces (sh_id, sl_name) >> VALUES(NEW.sh_id, NEW.sl_name); > Isn't that first rule gonna always fire and make the second one a > NOOP? No, the second is an implied ALSO, so it gets added to the DO INSTEAD NOTHING. This is actually the approach recommended in the man page for CREATE RULE where the reasons for doing that are described. The problem with this is that it always displays the message "UPDATE 0" when in fact the second rule may have also been applied with the INSERT. I posted this question to the postgresql.sql NG, where some discussion ensued. -- Seb -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
