Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC3B475D1C for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:13:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mill.mtholyoke.edu (mill.mtholyoke.edu [138.110.30.76]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D572474E61 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mill.mtholyoke.edu (mill [127.0.0.1]) by mill.mtholyoke.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with ESMTP id h08ID30P024717 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:13:03 -0500 Received: (from yrp001@localhost) by mill.mtholyoke.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) id h08ID3UM024715 for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:13:03 -0500 From: Ron Peterson Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:13:03 -0500 To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: insert rule doesn't see id field Message-ID: <20030108181303.GA23456@mtholyoke.edu> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org References: <20030107145422.GE12245@mtholyoke.edu> <13558.1041955268@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13558.1041955268@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Organization: Mount Holyoke College X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/109 X-Sequence-Number: 10974 On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:01:08AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > I thought that the idea behind noup was to protect single columns from > > update. However, when I apply the noup trigger as above, I can't > > update /any/ column. Is this the intended behaviour? > > Idly looking at the source code for contrib/noupdate/noup.c, I don't > believe that it has ever worked as advertised: it seems to reject any > non-null value for the target column, independently of whether the > value is the same as before (which is what I'd have thought it should > do). > > Is anyone interested in fixing it? Or should we just remove it? > If it's been there since 6.4 and you're the first person to try to use > it, as seems to be the case, then I'd have to say that it's a waste of > space in the distribution. I'm going to see if I can create this function. The issue I face is that I'm allowing certain clients to access parts of a PostgreSQL database on MS Access via ODBC. This means I can't really control how people may try to edit the data. Well, I could, by using MS Access security features, but I'd rather do what I can on the back end. If someone changes an ID field, then as long as foreign key contraints on other related tables are set to cascade or whatever, that won't be a problem. But what if someone updates an ID field to something higher than my current sequence? Then when the sequence hits that ID, it will crap out. Maybe just try again, but what if that happened to a bunch of records? Could be a pain. So that's the problem I'd like to prevent, for which I think this function would be useful. So I'll hack at it and see what I come up with. Might not happen immediately, though.. -- Ron Peterson -o) Network & Systems Manager /\\ Mount Holyoke College _\_v http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~rpeterso ----