Bruce, Richard, > Triggers are mostly for testing/modifying the row being > inserted/updated, while rules are better for affecting other rows or > other tables.
Hmmm. Thought that there were also some other criteria: 1) Rules can't use indexes to do their processing, so Rules which query large secondary tables can be a bad idea (maybe this has changed?) 2) Only Rules can "DO INSTEAD"; thus, only Rules are good for defining Read/Write views. 3) There are no AFTER Rules, making, for example, a rule with a table check on the new data impractical, so you'd want to use Triggers or Constraints etc. There are, IMHO, some things Rules are better for, and some things Triggers are better for. I tend to use all Triggers except for updatable views, simply because using a mix of Rules and Triggers can be very hard to keep track of, but YMMV. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---------------------------(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
