> Don't think so. I think the rule doesn't make any sense. > NEW.id and OLD.id are probably dbl values, so saying OLD.id=id (where id > is raw.id since that's the update table) isn't correct. It probably > should be OLD.id=id*2 (which seems to work for me, btw) It's editing > a different row than the one that's being selected.
I forgot to mention in this that I needed to made an additional change in the rule to make the ids come out correct at the end :(. The update set id=NEW.id should be id=NEW.id/2 of course... Otherwise the +10 becomes a +20. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
