Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B0563355E for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:02:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62490-03 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:02:31 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.225]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE926334C6 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:02:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l9so2039155rvb.43 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:02:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1LrHfoyz96EPQn+ZmqwKMJuWYJHoud7vhoYpIpD4IDk=; b=B/Q3JBsOfcd+BZRlKSPrakQlDI2kp8mDMLUPCsXOoDanbjlEk6qfHH49g+ae/KeqxF SJ1YpGZLv7DErA46sYBsDTLq0YI15+gbrm6ZYbAOGvy9o/fmI3M8o+EGbpmgcLizbk8n zcHJDyQpEh4P6tJ1ZNVrGGoEXeapFKlrNgu0c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=NGSOvClUYEBgfJapfXLyFbw0XIt8QCiP/KdERLSFb5zr7mUDV0GVnJsBVg2aPsK/Xk CBnHdtkdbGlHnC0S1Qv+/2egq756BIV0BvgeEdwb7c+8mUquUEhKadq1t1UMnShlGJgs JFpiMPK6GcwAYL9BG95xNhzVj9/KY/lvba5fs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.193.9 with SMTP id v9mr2827037rvp.120.1239642151560; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:02:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <49DC1034.1060705@frii.com> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:02:31 -0700 Message-ID: <396486430904131002p3faa978fn69bab2872a017436@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: changing multiple pk's in one update From: Richard Broersma To: Scott Marlowe Cc: Stuart McGraw , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200904/60 X-Sequence-Number: 32406 On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > Generally speaking, when you need to do this more than once or twice > in the lifetime of your data, there's something wrong with your data > model. True, but there are a few non-traditional data models that would benefit from this feature. The two that come to my mind are the Celko nested set tree model, and sequenced temporal tables. -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr. Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG) http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug