On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean_rasheed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Someone pointed out in an earlier thread that a >> way to fix this, for updates on a multi-table view (where most of the >> complication lies), is to write a "trigger" function that updates all >> the constituent tables except for one, and then write a rule that >> calls that function and then updates the one remaining table itself. >> This seems to work okay although I have not tested it with many >> clients. > > Yes that would seem to work. For UPDATE anyway. Although if it were purely > DML that you were doing, you would probably be better off just having multiple > UPDATE statements in the rule body. Then they would stand a better chance > of being rewritten and executed more efficiently. As Richard Broersma pointed out in the earlier thread, this approach has a tendency to result in "partial updates" if the WHERE clause in the UPDATE statement issued on the view includes more than just the primary key. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2008-06/msg00479.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-12/msg01048.php This is probably another one of the "subtle pitfalls" you mentioned, but to me it means that using multiple UPDATE statements in the rule body is unacceptable. Mike
