On Mar 23, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Klint Gore wrote:
Rows inserted into inherited tables are visible to the parent. It's
effectively the same as having a union all on the 2 tables. Using the
only qualifier is how you stop the "union" happening.
This explains it.
Thanks!
Scott
--
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:48:46 -0800, Scott Frankel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Close. Thanks for the very helpful suggestions!
>
> As I read the doco on rules and dissect the rule I've constructed, one
> issue
> remains: the UPDATE in my rule causes additional rows to be added to
> the pare
Frankel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:48:46 -0800
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] inherited table and rules
> Close. Thanks for the very helpful suggestions!
>
> As I read the doco on rules and dissect the rule I've constructed, one
Close. Thanks for the very helpful suggestions!
As I read the doco on rules and dissect the rule I've constructed, one
issue
remains: the UPDATE in my rule causes additional rows to be added to
the parent table. How is that possible? How can it be suppressed?
i.e.: My rule specifies that whe
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Scott Frankel wrote:
> Syntax troubles.
>
> What is the proper syntax for using FROM ONLY table_name in an UPDATE
> statement? According to the docs, In a FROM clause, I should be able to
> use the ONLY keyword preceding the table name. This throws an error:
>
> UPDATE
I think you can get what you want if you change the rule definition to
CREATE RULE
people_upd_history AS ON UPDATE TO people
DO INSERT INTO
people_history
SELECT * FROM only people WHERE usr_pkey = old.usr_pkey;
and your updates to be only's
-- update table (1) -- 2
UPDATE ONLY people SET color
I thought that all rows in inherited tables are visible to the table
that they are inherited from (ie all rows in people_history are visible
to people).
step by step would be
> INSERT INTO people (usr_name, color) VALUES ('bob', 'red');
make one row in people
> -- update table (1) -- 2
> UPDA
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:59:23PM -0800, Scott Frankel wrote:
> What is the proper syntax for using FROM ONLY table_name in an UPDATE
> statement?
See the UPDATE documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/sql-update.html
> What is the proper syntax for specifying FROM ONLY in th
Did you happen to look at the manual?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/sql-update.html
It pretty clearly indicates that the syntax is UPDATE ONLY table, so
try eliminating the FROM in your UPDATE example below.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/sql-createtable.html
The CREATE TAB
Syntax troubles.
What is the proper syntax for using FROM ONLY table_name in an UPDATE
statement?
According to the docs, In a FROM clause, I should be able to use the
ONLY keyword
preceding the table name. This throws an error:
UPDATE FROM ONLY people SET color = 'cyan' WHERE usr_pkey =
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Scott Frankel wrote:
>
> This is weird. I have two tables: one inherits from the other. And I
> have a
> rule that populates the inherited table with changes from the first.
> When I
> update a row in the first table, I get an ever-larger number of rows
> added to
> both i
This is weird. I have two tables: one inherits from the other. And I
have a
rule that populates the inherited table with changes from the first.
When I
update a row in the first table, I get an ever-larger number of rows
added to
both it and the inherited table. i.e.:
update 1 yiel
12 matches
Mail list logo
