Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370E6476F19 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:42:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644CE477016 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:30:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0NFU05u026022; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:30:00 -0500 (EST) To: "Tambet Matiisen" Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: calling function from rule In-reply-to: <81132473206F3A46A72BD6116E1A06AE1B14CB@black.aprote.com> References: <81132473206F3A46A72BD6116E1A06AE1B14CB@black.aprote.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Tambet Matiisen" message dated "Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:51:35 +0200" Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:30:00 -0500 Message-ID: <26021.1043335800@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/359 X-Sequence-Number: 11224 "Tambet Matiisen" writes: > I have a view and update rule on it, which updates another table. Now I would like to call a function, after update of the table is done. Also the function must be called in the same transaction as update. I tried to define an additional update rule on the view, but doing a SELECT in update rule spoils the affected records count: Try 7.3, we changed the rules about returned records count. http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.3/postgres/rules-status.html regards, tom lane