Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > My concern regarding the rule system is not related to the incorrect > update count but the fact that my update statement was suppose to > change BOTH name AND dresssize. However, as you see only the name was > changed, dresssize remains unchanged. Therefore, I assumed that the > update statement was not completed "atomically". At no point did you show us details, but I suppose that this rule is relying on a join view? Once you update one side of the join with a different join key value, the join row in question no longer exists in the view ... so the second update doesn't find a row to update. This has nothing to do with ACID. regards, tom lane
