Hi,
thanks for the feedback Graeme, but if possible, I would prefer not to use
the SEQUENCE feature of postgreSQL, for portability issues.
I got this running thanks to the 'in-depth' postgres docs, but I am not sure
if it is the proper way.
I have a function like this:
CREATE FUNCTION insert_update_id() RETURNS int4
AS 'UPDATE b SET id = id + 1; SELECT b.id AS RESULT'
LANGUAGE 'sql';
Whenever I do an INSERT, I pass in the function for the value.
INSERT INTO a (id,...) VALUES (insert_update_id(),..);
As the SQL query strings will be hardcoded once into a cgi, there is no
possibility of accidently entering in another vlaue instead of the function.
Is this a kludge, or an acceptable way of doing this? Maybe it causes less
overhead than the trigger method?
Thanks for your time,
Alex
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
