Re: Why do OLD and NEW have special internal names?
От | Jan Wieck |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why do OLD and NEW have special internal names? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4B06298E.5010507@Yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why do OLD and NEW have special internal names? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why do OLD and NEW have special internal names?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/20/2009 1:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes: >> But this brings up another point about the recent discussion of what >> RENAME is good for. Removing RENAME may conflict with using OLD/NEW in >> UPDATE ... RETURNING. No? > > Um ... not sure why. Specific example please? > > regards, tom lane Inside a trigger proc, NEW is supposed to mean the new row for the table that fired the trigger. However, inside an UPDATE RETURNING for example, there is another set of NEW and OLD. Let's call the trigger call's NEW NEW_a and the UPDATE RETURNING NEW NEW_b. How would the developer specify something like INSERT ... RETURNING (NEW_a.value - NEW_b.value)? Jan -- Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: