Melvin Call wrote > DELETE FROM staff > WHERE last = 'Doe' AND first = 'John'; > > This deletes the single record for John Doe (knowing it would delete > multiples if there were multiple John Doe in the table). > > But, if I issue the following statement: > DELETE FROM staff > WHERE company_name = 'company1'; > > all staff records associated with company1 are deleted. I want the first > statement to succeed, but the second to fail in such a way that I can > capture it and handle it. Is it possible that when the trigger is fired to > pass to the function the WHERE clause from the DELETE statement, or > something along that line? Or am I looking at this problem all wrong? > > Thanks, > Melvin Conceptually what you are trying to do should not work. Why is the second query invalid? I suggest using a set of one or more functions to accomplish your goal into a more structured way. This way you explicitly allow those filters that you deem valid and exclude all others. Update-able view triggers are intended to turn a view into something resembling a (raw) table and users do not expect their syntactically valid queries - referencing columns from the select-list - would result in an error being raised simply by changing the where-clause. There may be a way I am not aware of, my use of triggers is minimal, but I really doubt it an question whether it would be a good idea to use said functionality even if it exists. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Passing-a-WHERE-clause-by-trigger-to-a-function-tp5757825p5757843.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
