On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 17:09 -0800, Richard Broersma Jr wrote: > > Actually, I am seeing some unexpected behavior, or rather behavior that > > I wouldn't expect. After the first UPDATE in the rule, NEW and OLD are > > gone. > > I guess the end-result behaviour I am looking for (as you mentioned) is having an update-able view > behave exactly as if it were a table in regard to update and delete statements. (Delete > statements had a similar behavior behaviour, but I got around that problem by using "delete > cascade" on the leaf tables.) > Try: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION upd_func(INT,TEXT,INT) RETURNS VOID LANGUAGE sql AS $upd_func$ UPDATE public.person SET name = $2 WHERE id = $1; UPDATE public.wife SET dresssize = $3 WHERE id = $1; $upd_func$; CREATE OR REPLACE RULE vwife_update AS ON UPDATE TO public.vwife DO INSTEAD SELECT upd_func(OLD.id,NEW.name,NEW.dresssize); The difference here is that by passing the values into a function, it creates a copy of the value, meaning it won't change due to an UPDATE. The only negative of using a function is that the number of affected tuples will always be zero. Thanks for bringing this topic up... it made me understand the rule system much better than I did before. I think I'll have to read through that document a few more times. Regards, Jeff Davis
