Tom Lane wrote: > The above is a pretty bad idea in any case --- think about what happens > when you have some data in the table. It'll set *every row* to id = 1 > and data = 'test'. Your right, DUH, I forgot my where clause in my example. It is in the real query though, perhaps I didn't get enough coffee this morning. The reason nothing happens when there is nothing in > the table is that there is no row that can be updated. Taking an action > "instead of" an action that doesn't happen still doesn't happen. > > For what I think you want this application to do, it'd make more sense > for the application to say "INSERT some-data", and for you to have a > rule that changes that into an UPDATE if there is a pre-existing row > with matching key columns. I'll go with updating instead of inserting in the rule, however I am curious, is there a way to make an ON UPDATE rule work regardless if the original query updated rows or not? I was under the impression that the rule engine just looked at the query syntax not what it did. schu
