Re: FW: BUG in trigger and foreign keys
От | Jefim Matskin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: FW: BUG in trigger and foreign keys |
Дата | |
Msg-id | A27FEC8516051048B5B3A119BC0D8CB65B1ABA@exch2k.spheranet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | FW: BUG in trigger and foreign keys ("Jefim Matskin" <JefimM@sphera.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: FW: BUG in trigger and foreign keys
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Thank you for pointing that out. It seems that "oops I did it again". What are the rules for the order of the invocation of triggers defined for some table? If several triggers are defined which one if executed first? Jefim -----Original Message----- From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] Sent: Wed 25 December 2002 6:08 To: Jefim Matskin Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] FW: BUG in trigger and foreign keys "Jefim Matskin" <JefimM@sphera.com> writes: > If try it with the same script - but without the constraints - you will see the difference. > And there should not be any since the data is the same in the tables. No, it's not the same. Consider the implications of the constraint you added: ALTER TABLE reseller ADD CONSTRAINT FK_reseller_parent FOREIGN KEY (parent_id) REFERENCES reseller(reseller_id) ON DELETE CASCADE ON UPDATE CASCADE; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This will cause the delete of reseller_id 1338 to propagate to the rows in which 1338 appears as parent_id. Which sure looks to me like it's the behavior you're complaining of. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: